Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

COMPUTERS

Address for Return of the Report of the informal Joint Committee on Computers, presented to the Leaders of both Houses on 11 th November 1976, in the last Session of Parliament.—[Mr. Coleman.]

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

School Meals (Subsidy)

Mr. Luce: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she is satisfied with the level of subsidy on school meals.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Margaret Jackson): No, Sir. As indicated in last February's White Paper on Public Expenditure (Cmnd. 6393), it is our intention to reduce the present rate of subsidy by about half by 1980.

Mr. Luce: Is this not an example of the way our priorities are all wrong, since parents pay only 15p out of a total cost of 50p? In this financial year the taxpayer will be subsidising to the tune of £36 million, which is more than the cut in the defence budget. If the harsh choices were explained to parents, they would be willing to pay more for school meals in order to get our priorities into better shape.

Miss Jackson: As I have already said, parents will be asked to pay more. From September 1977 they will be asked to pay 25p.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Does not my hon. Friend agree that for poor families

with many children it is an enormous and unfair imposition to meet the cost of school fares and school meals? Will she ask her right hon. Friend in the Treasury, in his wisdom, to think again about this serious matter, because school meals have an important social content?

Miss Jackson: My hon. Friend knows that we are all concerned about the burden of school fares and school meals on poor families. In this case, however, we are looking at the way in which the school meals money is spent and the way in which free meals are provided. We shall come back to the House with regard to this at a later stage.

Tameside Legal Proceedings (Cost)

Mr. Gow: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she expects to know the cost to public funds of the legal proceedings in which her Department was involved in the Divisional Court, the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords in connection with secondary education in Tameside during 1976.

Miss Margaret Jackson: I understand from the Treasury Solicitor's Department that this may take some months.

Mr. Gow: As it is more than six months since the proceedings that were disastrous for the Government took place in the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the estimate of somewhere between £20,000 and £30,000 is right? What defence can there be for this money coming out of public funds when the two courts found that the Minister had fundamentally misdirected himself in this matter?

Miss Jackson: As the hon. Gentleman has already been told, and as was said in a Written Answer to another hon. Member on 10th January, we cannot confirm whether the costs will be £20,000 because the Crown's costs will be assessed only when the initial costs have been decided. This will take some months.

Mr. Christopher Price: Will my hon. Friend convey to all her ministerial colleagues that the Government's determination to stand up against the Appeal Court's attempts to encroach upon the rights of the Government—both with regard to Tameside and the present case


—is money well spent? Can my hon. Friend make sure that whenever the courts attempt to encroach upon Parliament's rights the Government will stand up to them?

Miss Jackson: I think that I should not stray into the territory of others of my right hon. Friends. My hon. Friend knows the views of the Secretary of State in full, having had an Adjournment debate on the matter.

Education Policy (Consultation Meetings)

Mr. Spearing: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans she has for assessing the reactions to the views expressed in her series of consultation meetings on educational policy.

Mr. Forman: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how she plans to assess the reactions to Government educational policy that will be expressed during her series of consultation meetings.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science and Paymaster-General (Mrs. Shirley Williams): I have now completed the first round of discussions on educational issues. The views so far expressed are being taken into account in the preparation of an agenda and background paper for discussion with a wide range of interests at eight regional conferences in February and March. Proposals for further action, which will be formulated in the light of these discussions, will then be published in the form of a consultative document.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does she not agree that some of the matters that have been submitted after the Prime Minister's initiative have already been largely resolved? Will the issues to be put forward in my right hon. Friend's agenda be in the form of questions, and will they go into the areas that have largely been resolved in this House and elsewhere?

Mrs. Williams: The four main areas of concern that have been identified in particular, and have been agreed with the groups with which I have already held preliminary discussions. were, first, the

curriculum; secondly, the question of educational standards and assessment; thirdly, the training of teachers; and, fourthly, education in working life—the relationship with both sides of industry. These will indeed be put in the form of questions to the conferences.

Mr. Forman: Does the right hon. Lady accept that the important thing about these eight regional conferences is that they should be more than just a public relations exercise? Can she assure the House that that will be the case? In reassuring the House on this point, can she give us details about the ways in which parental interests and concerns will be taken fully into account?

Mrs. Williams: Yes. Representatives of the teachers, the parents, the local authorities, the trade unions and employers and of higher and further education will be invited to the eight conferences to be held in England and Wales. This will be the first occasion on which there will have been widespread consultations with the parental interests. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this is not intended to be a public relations exercise. However, I hope that one of the outcomes will be a more balanced view of what is happening in education than perhaps exists at present.

Mr. Noble: What consultations has my right hon. Friend had with regional councils of further education? Did she note in The Guardian yesterday the remarks of the principal of a college in Bradford that attempts were being made to close down part-time courses for students in industry? Will not this destroy a comprehensive approach in further education? What steps will my right hon. Friend take to prevent the closure of courses which are essential both to industry and to the advancement of students taking part in them?

Mrs. Williams: I am aware of the report to which my hon. Friend refers. We are looking into this matter urgently. I hope my hon. Friend will appreciate that the main scope of the regional conferences concerns itself quite deliberately with the schools, because if we go too wide we shall not reach conclusions at all.

Dr. Boyson: Further to the matter put to the right hon. Lady by my hon. Friend


the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman), is not the Secretary of State aware that, since these conferences are to be only by invitation, there is a risk that they will represent the education establishment which has been in charge while there have been static or declining standards? Must there not be some means of bringing in the ordinary parent who is not a member of an organisation but who also holds strong views? I might perhaps add that the Opposition hope that there will be a follow-through, as distinct from the case of the Bullock Report, which came out in December 1974 but has not yet been debated in this House.

Mr. George Cunningham: Take 100 lines.

Mrs. Williams: As I have explained already, the area of invitation to the conferences goes far beyond the area of educational interests. Judging from the hon. Gentleman's recent speeches, I had expected him to realise what the Government were trying to do to widen the debate on education. I believe that we have a great deal to learn from the conferences and that they will include people recommended for their local influence on education, including parents with that kind of local influence, and not be simply through conventional methods of invitation.

Sir W. Elliott: Will the right hon. Lady accept that her suggestion that there should be parental involvement in the conferences will be greatly welcomed in Newcastle upon Tyne, where, she will recall, there was great distress recently about the reorganisation of feeder schools to comprehensive schools? Will she make the strongest recommendations in her future policy that there shall be parental consultation on this subject?

Mrs. Williams: We always advise full consultation with teachers and parents by local authorities which are making changes in their systems of education. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the first conference of all will be held in Newcastle upon Tyne on 18th February and that this recognises the importance which we attribute to that part of the country.

Primary Class Size (Stockport)

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Education and

Science if she will make a statement about the present dispute between the teachers' union and the local education authority over primary class size in Stockport.

Miss Margaret Jackson: The National Union of Teachers and National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers are imposing sanctions in primary and secondary schools in Stockport this term in protest against staffing standards in the authority's schools. Pupil-teacher ratios in Stockport are higher than the national average, particularly in primary schools.

Mr. Bennett: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Stockport more than 1,000 children are excluded from school? Will she consider inviting to her Department representatives of both the teachers and the local authority to see whether the problems in this dispute can be resolved?

Miss Jackson: I shall consider my hon. Friend's suggestion. But it is only fair to say that, as is always the case, the answer in these disputes lies with the local authority, the teachers and the local ratepayers, since Stockport is one of the lower-rated areas.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Although I understand the concern of teachers about the effect of public expenditure cuts on many local authorities, may I ask the hon. Lady to accept that it is the quality of teaching that is important and that in years gone by, when class sizes were as large as 50 per class, basic literacy was in many cases very much better than it is today?

Miss Jackson: I regret that all too often contributions to our education debates by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) are not noted for their grasp of the evidence. It is not true that literacy in the past was better than it is today.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Most certainly it was.

Secondary Reorganisation (Calderdale)

Mr. Madden: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement about the reorganisation of secondary education in Calderdale, West Yorkshire.

Miss Margaret Jackson: My right hon. Friend wrote yesterday to the Calderdale Education Authority, requiring it under Section 2(1) of the Education Act 1976 to submit within six months proposals for reorganising all its remaining selective schools.

Mr. Madden: Does my hon. Friend agree that certain Tory councillors opposed to comprehensive education who dominate the local education authority have elevated obstruction to the introduction of comprehensive education into a political science? Although I welcome the fact that letters have now been issued by her Department, will she make it clear that the schemes so far submitted by this education authority have been wholly unacceptable to her Department?

Miss Jackson: It is the case that we are awaiting satisfactory proposals from this authority. As my hon. Friend is aware, the authority has some capital allocations which are dependent on suitable schemes coming forward.

Teacher Training

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further cuts in the teacher training programme are envisaged; and if she will list colleges concerned in the Official Report.

Mr. John Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she expects to announce the list of colleges of education which are to be closed.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Gordon Oakes): My right hon. Friend hopes to announce next week her decision about the size of the teacher training system which should be retained and her proposals for further mergers, closures and other steps to provide the most effective system.

Mr. Roberts: Does my hon. Friend accept the concern felt about this matter not only by teachers but by parents generally? Can he at least give some sort of undertaking to the House that, irrespective of the birth-rate, when these cuts have been completed there will be some stability in teacher training? Will he also bear in mind the special difficulties

of girls who have been oriented to teaching in the past and consider providing new opportunities for them in view of these cuts?

Mr. Oakes: As for the timing, I am aware of the rumours and the concern within the colleges and the education world generally. That is why we have kept to the timetable. The announcement will be made next week.
As for what my hon. Friend says about the position of girls, who represent a considerable intake to teacher training at the moment, we are aware of this and we are looking at other ways in which this valuable source of ability can be better used, possibly for the country's industrial regeneration, than it has been in the past. The horizons of girls in the past have not been wide enough to see what industry can offer.

Mr. Evans: Does my hon. Friend accept that publication in the past of lists of colleges threatened with closure has had a damaging effect on the morale of all concerned in the colleges, including manual workers, who have tended to be overlooked in this argument? Will my hon. Friend ensure that the discussions are concluded as soon as possible so that all those connected with the colleges may know what their future is? Will he also do his utmost to ensure that some of these very valuable organisations and buildings are retained in the education system?

Mr. Oakes: I can assure my hon. Friend that I have taken note of all his points. He refers to the concern felt by all those connected with colleges. I repeat what I have said before from this Dispatch Box. I deplore wild statements such as those which appeared in one national newspaper in which lists of proposed closures were given before the matter had been considered by my Department.
As for the use of premises, I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate that, basically, in the case of maintained buildings, this is a matter for the local education authority concerned. But primarily we shall look to future education use where this is possible.

Mr. Hal Miller: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the statement will cover the position of teacher training associated with colleges of further education, as in


the North Worcestershire College of Higher Education, and will he tell us what will happen to those college of further education places, which apparently would be jeopardised if there were to be teacher training cuts?

Mr. Oakes: The statement will cover colleges of further education where there are teacher training courses.

Mr. Wigley: In view of the amount of evidence submitted to the Department and the statements made already by the Department, may we have an assurance that there will be no further cuts in relation to Bangor Normal College? Can the hon. Gentleman also give an assurance about the possible redundancy position of lecturers in those colleges if these cuts take place?

Mr. Oakes: I ask the hon. Gentleman to be patient for a week.

Pamphlets (Distribution)

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is her policy toward the distribution of pamphlets to State schools by bodies not connected with education or with education research; and if she will take action to check the content of such pamphlets.

Miss Margaret Jackson: The use made by schools of pamphlets and other material of this kind is a matter entirely for the local education authorities and the schools themselves. My right hon. Friend has no power to intervene.

Mrs. Short: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Observer, just before Christmas, published a report that a large number of anti-Semitic documents—about three-quarters of a million of them—had been printed in Birmingham which purported to claim that there was not any wholesale murder of Jews in the period before the war? The report said that these pamphlets were distributed on a considerable scale in schools, including some London grammar schools. Is it not entirely unacceptable that this sort of propaganda should be distributed, especially as a former member of the National Front was identified as being involved in the preparation of the pamphlet and its author was given as Richard E. Harwood, of London

University? I regard this as a matter of great concern, as I hope my hon. Friend does.

Miss Jackson: I agree. It is not only unacceptable; it is disgraceful to publish material of this kind which bears no relation whatever to the evidence of crimes which were committed. Also, I think it is dreadful that sufficient money has been made available to distribute material of this kind on such a large scale. But I am not aware of this material having been distributed in schools. I think that it is a matter in which, as in many others, we can rely on the good sense of head teachers in schools to know what sort of material is totally unsuitable for children's use.

Mr. Hal Miller: Is the Minister aware of the distribution of pamphlets in my constituency by an organisation called Big Flame, calling on pupils to revolt against their parents and containing whole strings of four-letter words which are totally unsuitable for children of this age?

Miss Jackson: I am not aware of the pamphlet which the hon. Member has mentioned. If he sends me a copy I will look at it.

School Leaving Age

Mr. Bryan Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many representations she has received urging her to reduce the school leaving age to 14 years.

Mr. van Straubenzee: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she has any proposals for lowering the statutory school leaving age.

Mr. loan Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations she has received regarding the reduction in the age for school leavers.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: In the last four months of 1976, my Department received two letters urging that the leaving age be lowered to 14 years and 29 seeking other variations in the leaving arrangements. Opinion in favour is evidently far from overwhelming, and I have no plans to lower the statutory school leaving age. Indeed, the raising of the school leaving


age has been of great benefit to many boys and girls, especially in regions where only a small proportion stay on after compulsory age.

Mr. Davies: Does my right hon. Friend draw a degree of consolation from such a limited response to the initiative by the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson), the Opposition Front Bench spokesman on education? Perhaps the hon. Member could write more frequently himself. Is it not a fact that the British people have no wish to return to the depths of the nineteenth century in terms of educational provision?

Mrs. Williams: One is entitled to inquire just how far the views of the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) represent those of the parents for whom he claims to speak. Fortunately I, in common with members of his own party, do not agree with his views.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Will the Secretary of State confirm that none of her predecessors was more successful in securing resources for raising the school leaving age or was more dedicated to that idea than the present Leader of the Opposition? Whatever else one might say about the argument, does the Secretary of State agree that educationally it is far too early to make any serious suggestions for altering the school leaving age, for the time being at any rate?

Mrs. Wiliams: There is no doubt that the Labour Government of 1966–70 and the present Leader of the Opposition pursued with vigour the raising of the school leaving age and the supply of resources for it. That makes it all the stranger that the Leader of the Opposition should have chosen the hon. Member for Brent, North as one of her spokesmen. However, I attribute this to her respect for free speech.

Mr. Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that not only is it wrong on education grounds to think of reducing the school leaving age but it is wrong also because many school leavers are unemployed, and it is difficult at present to find positions for teachers? Such a ridiculous suggestion should not even be considered.

Mrs. Williams: My hon. Friend is quite right. In the last year there has

been an increase of 35,000 boys and girls who choose to stay on at school after 16 over and above the figures for the previous year. This bears out what my hon. Friend says about employment opportunities and illustrates the wish of many young men and women to improve their skills. I give him a full assurance that there is no question of going back on the raising of the school leaving age. To do so would destroy the possibility of a full five-year course.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Surely the Secretary of State must know that Conservative policy on the school leaving age is to keep it in principle at 16 but between 15 and 16 to make it more flexible in practice by allowing selected pupils to go on to colleges of further education or take up apprenticeships. Why is the Secretary of State attacking my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) when in the matter of standards, with the possible exception of the Prime Minister, she is his most distinguished convert? Should she not have greater respect for her guru?

Mrs. Williams: There is no doubt that on this issue the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) and I had established a certain bipartisan policy with regard to the hon. Member for Brent, North. However, that is a matter for him to decide. Yes, I am aware of Conservative Party policy, or at least I thought I was. I hope the hon. Member recognises that this policy would require a change in the law.

Mr. Skinner: Does not the Secretary of State agree that perhaps it would be better if the two hon. Gentlemen who are spokesmen on education came to the Dispatch Box together and told us where the Tory Opposition stand on education? The result could not be more garbled than at present. If we were to lower the school leaving age fewer teachers would be needed, and we need to occupy those who are out of work at the moment. One way to keep teachers in employment is to keep the colleges open. In this regard, will my right hon. Friend ensure that Matlock College is kept open as well?

Mrs. Williams: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenuity in raising the matter of his college, but on that part of


his question I must ask him to restrain himself for a week. On the first part of his supplementary question, I would point out that as a lover of music I have never much appreciated discordant duets.

Pupil-Teacher Ratios

Mr. Joseph Dean: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will publish the pupil/teacher ratios for the primary and secondary schools in the city of Leeds and for England and Wales.

Miss Margaret Jackson: Pupil-teacher ratios for each local education authority in England and Wales were published by my Department on 16th December and are available in the Library. The average pupil-teacher ratios in January 1976 in maintained schools in Leeds were in primary schools 25·;1 to 1 and in secondary schools 18·;5 to 1. The ratios for England and Wales were 23·;9 to 1 and 17·;0 to 1 respectively.

Mr. Dean: I thank the Minister for her reply. Is she aware that during a visit to a primary school in my constituency last September I found a ratio of 37-plus pupils to one teacher? Is my hon. Friend aware that last May we had a debate in this House, initiated by the Opposition on a Supply Day, and the two Front Bench spokesmen both quoted Leeds as an example of a very good Tory-controlled authority? If my figures are correct, does not this decry their argument?

Miss Jackson: I am surprised and disturbed to hear that there is a school in my hon. Friend's area with a primary class of that size. The number of classes with more than 35 pupils is quite small throughout the country as a whole. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would write to me about this matter.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Is the Minister aware that there are primary schools in London with class sizes of about 35 even though the staff-pupil ratio is much lower? Does not the quality of education in a school depend much on the organisation within the school, which may involve large class sizes so that extra teachers can move around to particular classes or particular children? Therefore, the size of the class is not the answer to the problem.

Miss Jackson: The hon. Gentleman raises several issues surrounding the vexed question of pupil-teacher ratios and their relationship with class sizes. There is much in what he says. He will have noticed that I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean) to write to me to make me familiar with the details of his case.

Leisure Activities (Decision-making)

Mr. Steen: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps she will take to ensure young people participate in the making of decisions which will affect the use of their leisure time.

Miss Margaret Jackson: My right hon. Friend has established a Youth Service Forum for England and Wales, under my chairmanship, on which not less than one-third of the members will be young people under the age of 26. At its first meeting last month the forum agreed to set up a working party to consider, among other things, how young people may more effectively influence Youth Service policy and provision.

Mr. Steen: What network is the Minister using to find young people, and how many young people have been found to date for her Youth Service Forum?

Miss Jackson: As yet, the final composition of the forum has not been established. It has had only its first meeting and the final members are in the process of being appointed. I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question factually, but not less than one-third of the members will be under 26. If he wishes, when the final composition of the forum is established I will write to him.

Mr. Heffer: Surely it is not just a question of young people taking decisions on leisure time. What we need is employment for young people. My right hon. Friend said that 35,000 children were staying on at school after 16. Unfortunately, many are staying on because there is no employment for them. Is not that an issue with which the Department should be concerned?

Miss Jackson: Certainly we are concerned that young people do not have jobs to go to, but we think it is preferable for young people to stay on in education and perhaps acquire additional skills


which might help them to get a better job later rather than that they should be totally unemployed.

National Union of Students

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science, when she next expects to meet representatives of the National Union of Students.

Mr. Oakes: No meeting is planned, but my right hon. Friend and I are always ready to consider requests from the National Union of Students for meetings.

Mr. Canavan: Bearing in mind the concern of the NUS about reports in the Daily Record and elsewhere about the possible closure of Stirling University, will my hon. Friend take this opportunity of publicly declaring that there is no truth whatsoever in those reports? In view of today's Scottish Office document on teacher training, which suggests the possible closure of Callendar Park College of Education, would it not be better to study the feasibility of merging Callendar Park College with the University of Stirling, which is the only university in Scotland offering a degree course concurrent with teacher training?

Mr. Oakes: My right hon. Friend has already written to my hon. Friend to assure him that there are no Government plans to close Stirling University. I am glad to have the opportunity to say that in the House publicly and categorically. This is the first I have heard of the suggestion my hon. Friend has made. I shall look at it and consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is responsible for colleges of education in Scotland.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Will the Minister confirm that he will remain as willing to meet the NUS when—as will happen before long—it is taken over by Conservative students?

Mr. Oakes: I very much doubt that eventuality, but, were it to happen, of course I should still be willing to meet the student body—the National Union of Students.

Education Act 1944 (Ministerial Powers)

Mr. Ovenden: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what

communications she has sent to local education authorities since the beginning of December in connection with her powers under the Education Act 1976.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Yesterday I wrote under Section 2 of the Act to a further 26 authorities where further progress is required towards bringing about a fully comprehensive system for secondary education. Six local education authorities are being required to submit within six months proposals for reorganising all their remaining selective schools, 12 are being required to submit also within six months proposals for reorganising some parts of their area where selective schools remain, and eight are being required to submit proposals again within six months in respect of particular voluntary schools where admission arrangements remain on a selective basis. I am arranging for a full list of these authorities and the schools concerned to be placed in the Official Report.

Mr. Ovenden: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I assure her that those of us who are interested in seeing comprehensive education become a reality throughout the country will welcome her action in imposing a strict time limit. Will she make clear to the local authorities concerned that if they default upon that time limit she will not hesitate to use her powers under the Education Act to enforce their acceptance of comprehensive education? Will she also make clear to the local authorities concerned that she intends to give priority in the allocation of financial resources to comprehensive reorganisation?

Mrs. Williams: In reply to the first part of the supplementary question, as the first circular on comprehensive schools was issued as long ago as 1965 there has been a great deal of time for authorities to consider the matter. I very much resent criticism that we are giving them very little time in which to complete it. I have every reason to believe that local authorities will obey the law. That is what I have been informed, and I am sure they will do so. It has been made clear to authorities that building allocations will be made available for secondary schools and others for basic needs—which is a special case—only where there are arrangements for comprehensive reorganisation to which local authorities


make clear they have committed themselves.

Mr. Goodlad: In view of the remarks made by the Under-Secretary of State in the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill on 20th December about the possibility of bringing forward legislation to alter the powers of the Secretary of State with particular reference to Section 68 of the 1944 Act, has the Secretary of State any plans to bring forward legislation to alter her powers either under the 1944 Act or the 1976 Act?

Mrs. Williams: That does not arise directly on this Question, and I am not entirely sure that I have followed the hon. Gentleman's point. If I understand him correctly, I must tell him that the effect of the Education Act 1976 is to ask local authorities to have regard to the comprehensive principle. The original 1944 Act indicates the scope of parental wishes, and that also remains the law.

Mrs. Millie Miller: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that education authorities, such as the London borough of Red-bridge in my constituency, which appear to have difficulty in achieving plans to make the whole of their system comprehensive will be able to receive guidance and advice from her if they cannot produce a plan on their own?

Mrs. Williams: We are always willing to assist authorities with advice on their plans. If an authority submits an unsatisfactory plan but has the intention of reorganising, we are also very willing to sit down and discuss with it the way in

1. AUTHORITIES REQUIRED TO SUBMIT PROPOSALS FOR ALL REMAINING SELECTIVE SCHOOLS:


BOLTON
BROMLEY
BURY
CALDERDALE
KENT
LINCOLNSHIRE

which its plans might be achieved. The great bulk of the 41 authorities which I have not on this occasion written to are in exactly that position. That is to say, they intend to reorganise as soon as resources are available for them to do so, and I am persuaded of their good will in saying that.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: What is the logic of the Secretary of State's position in seeking to dragoon nearly one-third of the local education authorities into going comprehensive and not giving them the resources with which to do so adequately? Will not the only certain result of that policy be that botched-up schemes will be put forward which will not be in the interests of the children concerned and will bring the idea of the comprehensive school into disrepute?

Mrs. Williams: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can have been listening sufficiently carefully to what I said. The 26 authorities to which we have written are authorities which have not submitted any plans for reorganisation, have not submitted plans for part of their area or have not submitted plans in relation to voluntary schools. The 41 authorities to which we have not written are authorities which have submitted schemes which, because resources have not yet been available or because of arguments on a legal matter concerning voluntary school trusts, will be delayed, but we have every reason to believe that the authorities intend to reorganise.

Following is the list:

SHROPSHIRE
…
1. Newport




2. Shrewsbury




3. Oswestry


WARWICKSHIRE
…
1. Rugby




2. Stratford


WIRRAL
…
Bebington and Deeside

3. AUTHORITIES REQUIRED TO SUBMIT PROPOSALS FOR VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS:


BARNET
…
…
…
Henrietta Barnet


BIRMINGHAM
…
…
…
King Edward VI schools:






Aston Boys Grammar






Camphill Boys Grammar






Fiveways Boys Grammar






Camphill Girls Grammar






Handsworth Girls Grammar






Bishop Vesey's Grammar, Sutton Coldfield






Handsworth Boys Grammar


CROYDON
…
…
…
1. Archbishop Tennison






2. St. Andrews (CE)


ENFIELD
…
…
…
Latymer


HAMPSHIRE
…
…
…
1. Churchers College, Petersfield






2. King Edward VI, Southampton


LANCASHIRE
…
…
…
1. District 7—Hutton Boys (VA) Grammar






2. District 1—Lancaster Royal (VA) Grammar


MANCHESTER
…
…
…
1. Fallowfield High School (CE VA) Grammar






2. Bishop Greer High School (CE VC) Secondary Modern


WOLVERHAMPTON
…
…
…
Wolverhampton Grammar School

School Leavers (Qualifications)

Miss Fookes: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many pupils leave school without examination qualifications of any kind.

Mr. Oakes: In the academic year 1974–75, 72,810 boys and 62,340 girls left school in England and Wales without obtaining a GCE or CSE grading. These figures represent 20·;6 per cent. and 18·4 per cent. respectively of all boys and girls who left school in that year. I am arranging for a list of regional comparisons for 1974–75 to be circulated in the Official Report.

Miss Fookes: Is not that a disturbingly large figure? Will the Minister consider the possibility of instituting tests of literacy and numeracy towards which these pupils could aim?

Mr. Oakes: I agree that it is a disturbingly large figure, but I remind the House that the total of boys and girls without qualifications in 1974–75 was 19·5 per cent., compared with 21 per cent. in 1973 and 43 per cent. in 1971. As for standards, the Assessment of Performance Unit is developing methods of sampling levels of attainment nationally. Her Majesty's inspectors are currently un-

dertaking national primary and secondary school surveys on a sample basis, which will give us a clearer picture of what is happening.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Will my hon. Friend tell the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) that a number of Conservative-controlled education authorities, including that in Hampshire, are proposing to reduce the amount of money available for examination fees for children?

Mr. Oakes: My hon. Friend himself has told the hon. Lady.

Dr. Hampson: How does the Minister reconcile his desire to see young people acquire more skills by staying on at school with the fact—this applies to some of them when it did not before—that they are getting a handful or one or two CSEs that are not skills and not directly relevant to the work situation? Why have the Government on two occasions resisted efforts made by the Conservative Opposition to change legislation to make the final year at school more effective so that people can use further education and actually acquire skills? What will the Government do in the light of their own new policy in that area?

Mr. Oakes: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise that the CSE examination is not useful for all practical skills as well as to register attainment in a particular subject. I remind the House that the figures indicate a steady and consistent improvement in the number of pupils who leave school with a qualification.

Following is the list:—

1974–75 REGIONAL COMPARISONS OF THOSE WITHOUT GRADED GCE OR CSE RESULTS


Area
Without graded GCE or GCE or CSE results


South-Western
16·1


Other South-East
14·1


North Western, non-metropolitan
18·8


West Midlands, non-metropolitan
20·2


East Anglia
23·8


Wales
30·4


Yorkshire and Humberside, non-metropolitan
19·7


East Midlands
21·3


Greater London, outer
17·7


North-Western, metropolitan
21·4


West Midlands, metropolitan
22·6


Yorkshire and Humberside Metropolitan
21·7


Northern, non-metropolitan
20·5


Northern, metropolitan
19·0


Greater London, inner
25·4


England and Wales
19·5

Expenditure

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much will be spent on education in England and Wales in the present financial year; and what amount was so spent in 1971–72 at current prices.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: It is estimated that in the present financial year expenditure on education in England and Wales, but including universities for Great Britain as a whole, will be about £6,250 million, at 1976 survey prices. The figure for 1971–72, at the same price base, is £5,420 million.

Mr. Hardy: Is it not clear that, despite the declining birth-rate and the talk of savage cuts, education should receive this year and for the rest of the 1970s rather greater provision and support than it received five or six years ago, provided that the local authorities continue to act responsibly? Is my right hon. Friend confident that all of them will do so?

Mrs. Williams: As I have cited in answer to the Question, the growth between these two years was 15·3 per cent. in real terms, which is just under twice the increase in the total school population of 8 per cent. My hon. Friend's assumption is therefore correct. I have advised local authorities not to alter or reduce the staff-pupil ratio and to give priority to the staffing of schools. If they take notice of that advice, I am convinced that education policy will improve and not deteriorate in the coming year.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Will the right hon. Lady take into account 1978–79, when she will find that one-quarter of the proposed cuts in Government expenditure will fall on education? Although we agree on both sides of the House that education should have its fair share of the cuts, surely that is excessive, above all from a Labour Government?

Mrs. Williams: I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that a substantial proportion of the proposed cuts will fall upon the capital building programme. The net fall has been much altered by the change in the birth-rate, though obviously, like the hon. Gentleman, I am determined that education shall not carry more than its fair share of reductions.

Universities (Industrial Development Units)

Mr. Wrigley: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many industrial development units there are in universities in the United Kingdom at present; and where they are located.

Mr. Oakes: There are 29 industrial development or liaison units in universities in the United Kingdom. Those in Wales are at the University Colleges of Bangor, Cardiff and Swansea. I am sending the hon. Gentleman a full list.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister give an assurance that the Government see these units as a major tool in the development of industry and employment? For that reason, do they intend to make more finance available for the units to develop their work?

Mr. Oakes: I gladly recognise the importance that the Government attach to the units and the close links between


universities and all forms of industry. I hope that the progress which has been made over the past 10 years will continue.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: As a policy towards jubilee year, will the hon. Gentleman consider providing a certain sum of money within the hard-pressed budget of the Department of Education and Science to finance a limited period of national youth service for all young people in this country? I hope the Minister will agree that such a service could be of great advantage to industry as well as to the young people concerned.

Mr. Oakes: Whether I agree or do not agree, that does not arise in any way from the Question.

TUC

Mr. Madden: asked the Prime Minister when he will next meet the TUC General Council.

Mr. Adley: asked the Prime Minister when he next intends to meet the TUC.

Mr. Canavan: asked the Prime Minister when he next expects to meet the TUC.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I expect to meet some of the leaders of the TUC when I take the chair at the meeting of the NEDC on 2nd February. Other meetings will be arranged as necessary.

Mr. Madden: Despite yesterday's most welcome trade surplus, does my right hon. Friend remain dismayed at the level of imports entering the United Kingdom? Will he tell the TUC, the directors of the CBI and the Director-General of the NEDC, all of whom have urged selective import controls, that he is prepared to consider that policy together with a much tougher anti-dumping policy? Will he take the opportunity at the rumoured National Industrial Conference and on his visits to major concerns throughout the country to stress that urgent action should be taken to substitute for imports?

The Prime Minister: I am concerned still at the level of imports, although, if we take the last quarter over the previous quarter, imports increased by 1 per cent.

and exports by 5 per cent., which is a very welcome trend. I hope that that trend will continue. Despite trends and fashions, I hope that people will buy British wherever they can and where-ever it is of value. As regards selective import controls, that is now the Government's policy. There are cases that are constantly examined both in the multifibre sector and elsewhere. We have been looking into ways and means of speeding up anti-dumping applications to ensure that they are decided as quickly as possible.

Mr. Adley: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the TUC that many Post Office workers resent the TUC's recommendation that they should take industrial action for political reasons, and object to the fact that they were not consulted by their unions? They are anxious to know why the TUC always seems to take this sort of action against South Africa and never against dictatorships of the Soviet Union or Eastern Europe.

The Prime Minister: It will be for the TUC to ascertain the intentions and views of its members and not for me to tell it the particular matters that the hon. Gentleman raises. It is proper and right for the Trades Union Congress to be concerned about the organisation of trade unionists in South Africa as everywhere else. I hope that the Opposition will not spend all their time on this matter but will join forces with those who wish to see labour in South Africa properly organised and enjoying the human dignity that it should enjoy.

Mr. Canavan: I congratulate trade unionists on organising this week's boycott against the apartheid régime in South Africa, but will my right hon. Friend also tell the professional footballers' union that many of us within the Labour and trade union movement will resist any pressure from the dictators within the Scottish Football Association who are trying, under the threat of disciplinary action, to force players to take part in the Scotland versus Chile international football match in a stadium in Santiago which has been desecrated by the torture and murder of many innocent people by the Fascist Pinochet régime?

The Prime Minister: I recognise that it is not possible to keep the boundary


between sport and politics entirely free where these issues are held so deeply, but with respect I do not expect to be discussing this matter with the TUC.

Mr. Carlisle: When the right hon. Gentleman next meets the TUC, will he use his influence as Prime Minister to stress to members of the General Council that if, as I am sure they do, they believe in a system of parliamentary democracy rather than union dictatorship, they have a responsibility to stress to their members that they should accept the laws of this country rather than encourage them to disobey them?

The Prime Minister: There is no doubt where the leaders of the TUC stand on this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where do you stand?"] The Opposition do not do either industrial peace or their own prospects any good by constantly attacking the TUC on these matters. Although the chance may seem remote, the day may come when they will have to deal with them in a responsible manner.
The Government's policy on law and order is well known and will be steadily maintained.

Mr. James Lamond: May I ask the Prime Minister, when he talks to the TUC about extending the social contract for a further period, not to be hindered by the impudent and ill-advised speech of the Duke of Edinburgh, who appeared to be clambering on to the bandwagon—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is the long-established custom in this House to speak with respect of members of the Royal Family.

Mr. Skinner: He has no respect for workers.

Mr. Torney: He certainly has not.

Mr. Speaker: Order. All I am asking for is courteous language.

Mr. James Lamond: I hope that my right hon. Friend's talks will not be impeded by speeches, from whatever source they may come, which are impudent and ill-advised enough to suggest that we should pay less attention to the deprived and underprivileged, which would be contrary to the whole spirit of the social

contract which has been forged with the Trades Union Congress.

The Prime Minister: I am not sure how far your ruling went, Mr. Speaker, but, as you will know, there is no ministerial responsibility for speeches made by the Duke of Edinburgh, and I certainly do not intend to assume any. I do not think that such speeches, by whomever they are made, will have any impact on the great understanding between the Government and the trade union movement on some of these issues.

PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Tim Renton: asked the Prime Minister what are his official engagements for 18th January.

Mr. Luce: asked the Prime Minister what are his official engagements for Tuesday 18th January.

The Prime Minister: In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

Mr. Renton: In the course of a busy day, will the Prime Minister find time this evening to stop and think about the extension of power of non-parliamentary bodies in Britain during the last week? From his reading of today's Press, for example, what does he think about the fact that the price of a loaf is now to be determined by the bread van delivery men?

The Prime Minister: I often pause and think about the relationships between the various power structures in this country. This matter, if it is not wholly treated on a purely party basis, should be of concern to us all. I do not intend to have among my engagements today anything to do with bread.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: I wonder whether I may take my right hon. Friend back to his official engagements for last Thursday, particularly Question Time. Does he not regret with me the fact that the visit of Mr. Bukovsky to this country was used for blatant party political purposes and to foster the mistaken impression that people in the Labour movement are


not in favour of the campaign for further civil liberties in the Soviet Union? Will he tell the House what approaches were made by Mr. Bukovsky for a meeting and the Government's response to those approaches?

The Prime Minister: Last Thursday, when I was perhaps a little unnecessarily irked by the nature of the question put to me, I overlooked, although I had been told that an engagement had been made for Mr. Bukovsky to be seen by a Foreign Office Minister. That engagement was put off and a second engagement was made, but Mr. Bukovsky cancelled that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] He cancelled it because of ill health. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is for hon. Gentlemen to comment on, and not for me.
I certainly recognise, as I hope all hon. Members do, the great pressure to which someone who is released from the atmosphere of the Soviet Union is subject. Because of that, it is highly undesirable that he should be used for party political purposes.

Mr. Luce: In the light of Mr. Bukovsky's experience and recent remarks, will the Prime Minister turn his mind to the facts? Does he recall that in July 1975 the then Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Michael Carver, said that Britain's defence had reached absolute bedrock? Since then there have been three defence cuts to the tune of £1 billion. Is not the Prime Minister—indeed, the Government—guilty of jeopardising the defence and freedom of the British people?

The Prime Minister: This matter was debated last week. In any case, it has nothing to do with the hon. Gentleman's Question.

GOVERNMENT POLICY

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Prime Minister what progress he anticipates towards his Government's objectives of lower rates of inflation, increased real incomes, lower unemployment and increased production of real wealth above those ruling at the time of the last General Election.

The Prime Minister: Sustained improvement will depend on the steady pur-

suit of the Government's existing policies, including such matters as improving the efficiency and productivity of British industry, competing effectively for exports in world markets, a higher rate of new industrial investment and better use of industry's existing investment, together with adherence to the social contract. In addition, a growth of world trade would be a substantial help in making the progress to which the hon. Gentleman aspires. The Government are pursuing all these matters.

Mr. Tebbit: The Prime Minister referred to a continuance of the policies which have been pursued since the last General Election. Is he aware that since then industrial production has fallen 3 per cent., unemployment has more than doubled from the famous 8·4 per cent. that was then ruling, and real take-home wages have fallen? Yet he talks of continuing with the same policies. Does he not have anything better to do than to continue with those policies? Could he not try the IMF's policies?

The Prime Minister: My actual words were that we should ensure
the steady pursuit of the Government's existing policies".
I believe that those policies are already bringing results and that they will continue to do so. This is hardly the day for the Opposition, in the light of yesterday's trade figures, to say that they are entirely wrong.

Mr. Jay: Should we not all warmly welcome the fact that the Opposition have been entirely unsuccessful in their persistent efforts this winter to damage sterling?

The Prime Minister: I think that the Opposition sometimes act out of malevolence and on occasions out of ignorance. Charitably, I prefer, to put it down to ignorance rather than to malevolence.

Mr. Hordern: What is the Government's policy in relation to interest rates? Is it to have deliberately high interest rates? Does the Prime Minister realise that the Government are selling hundreds of millions of pounds worth of gilt-edged securities at a rate of over 14 per cent. and are loading the country with very substantial debts for many years to come? Does he appreciate that industry is now


unable to borrow money at these rates? How does he defend this policy?

The Prime Minister: That question should be put down to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. [HON. MEMBERS: "You are in charge. You are the boss."] I know that I shall never get that albatross off my neck. I shall have it week after week, whether it is true or not.
It would be foolish, to use the hon. Gentleman's word, deliberately to maintain high interest rates. The Government do not wish to do that. But neither do I wish to forecast either the future trend or sales of gilt-edged securities.

Mr. Whitehead: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) was reported this week as having made a speech in Brussels in which he said that he looked forward to a Government in this country who had the populism of Poujade and the economics of freedom—Friedman. [Interruption.] I am not one of those who equates freedom with Friedman. Is my right hon. Friend aware that that speech apparently emptied the room in record time? Does he agree that if those policies were applied here they would empty this country of hope and fraternity in equally record time?

The Prime Minister: It seems to me that the Opposition have already adopted the policies of the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). In the whole time that I have been in the House I do not remember a party that has been moved so quickly to the right of the political spectrum. If ever the Opposition had the opportunity of putting into practice the policies of Poujade and Friedman—to which, I agree, they are committed—it would be a sad day for this country.

Mrs. Thatcher: Is not the Prime Minister aware that, according to the Index of Industrial Production published today, the results of his efforts are that this country now produces less than in February 1974? Why is he so self-satisfied with a policy that produces record unemployment, record low production and record inflation?

The Prime Minister: I hope that I do not give the impression of being self-satisfied. Indeed—I do not expect to hear

a fair opinion from hon. Members opposite—I constantly remind the country of the great distances that we have to travel on economic matters and I shall continue to do so.
If we look at the forecasts for this year, which, as with all Treasury forecasts, should be treated with considerable circumspection—and they are all used by the Opposition when they want to take a stick with which to beat us—they show that gross domestic product will be higher, industrial investment will be higher, manufacturing investment will be higher, manufacturing production will be higher and the increase in retail prices will be lower. These are very important and valuable steps. The one fact with which we have not yet begun to deal satisfactorily is unemployment. That is an issue to which we must bend most of our attention.

SCOTLAND AND WALES BILL

Mr. Abse: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On today's Order Paper in my name and that of other hon. Members there is an Instruction to the Committee on the Scotland and Wales Bill asking that power be given to the Committee to divide the Bill into two Bills—one relating to Wales and the other to Scotland. You have already dealt with the only other Instruction which came before the House prior to dealing with the Committee stage of the Scotland and Wales Bill.
We are about to embark upon the first amendment which impinges upon Wales in the Bill and it seems necessary that those of us who are in support of that Instruction should ask you first to rule that the Instruction is in order. It would then he seen that we have an opportunity, if we so wish, to take the necessary steps to ensure that Wales will have a Bill of its own in which the matters affecting Wales can be considered, disentangled from the provisions relating to Scotland.
I put my point of order at this stage because there are hundreds of amendments down now which solely impinge upon Scotland. If we proceed as it appears to be intended, we shall proceed in a way which can only lead to the severe neglect of issues which affect Wales. The people of Wales will be disadvantaged and perhaps ultimately a Bill could be


presented to them which is ill-considered and ill-digested, upon which we could not expect to have a referendum.
It is not possible to proceed to my second point unless we have a ruling whether the Instruction is in order, unlike the previous Instruction upon which you gave your ruling last week.

Mr. Speaker: It is not possible for the occupant of the Chair to give a ruling on remaining Orders of the Day. It is customary to give the ruling when Orders come up for discussion. May I anticipate the hon. Member by saying that I hope that he is not seeking to raise with me the further point about the placing on the Order Paper of this motion, because he did not put down the Instruction until after the Committee stage had started, unlike the right hon. Lady the Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) who got her Instruction down in time. The matter involves the remaining Orders of the Day and there it must remain unless the Government seek to give it precedence.

Mr. Abse: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that the position is as you indicate—that it is an option open to the Government and not an option open to you to accelerate this Order so that the House has the opportunity to consider an important principle. I am sure that you will appreciate that if it is not dealt with at this time we shall begin to embark on consideration in detail of the Bill in Committee and will therefore not finally lose the opportunity to divide the Bill but leave it to a stage at which a division of the Bill would cause considerable embarrassment.
Although I am aware that there appears to be a practice as described in "Erskine May" that such a motion should be tabled prior to the Committee stage, we have a unique constitutional proposition in this case. I am inviting you, Mr. Speaker, to rule that this long-established practice should be departed from.
Surely it is open to the Leader of the House to co-operate and assist in this problem since he, above everybody else, will not wish to take advantage of the position by trying to deprive Wales and the House of having an opportunity of considering its own Bill.
I again press the point that the opportunity is afforded to depart from precedent

and that in any event it is open to the Leader of the House to assist us if he really wants Wales to have a fair opportunity to discuss a Bill of its own. Since that is so I ask again whether an opportunity can be made for consideration of this Instruction to be accelerated so that the House can decide whether it wants the two Bills disengaged so that they can be considered on their own merits.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me make it quite clear that I will not take a string of points of order on this question. I have given a ruling that the practice has been long established. This Instruction cannot be given priority by me.

Mr. Kinnock: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Is it on the same question?

Mr. Kinnock: It is on the general question.

Mr. Speaker: I am not taking points of order on that Instruction.

Mr. Kinnock: The point of order is on the general question of Instructions. In particular it relates to the appropriate time for tabling them.
As a Welsh Member, Mr. Speaker, you will know that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) and I and many other hon. Members have sought over the last two years to convince members of the Government of the necessity and desirability of dividing the propositions for devolution between two Bills. You have said, Mr. Speaker, that precedent shows that there is an appropriate time at which the Instructions may be put down. One of the attractive features of this House is its flexibility in trying to maximise the benefit to the nation of whatever it does. However, if an Instruction were to be put down at a late stage in a Bill—for example, on this matter—the accusation could be made that its sponsors were attempting to wreck the Bill. At this stage, therefore, before we have embarked upon discussing the Welsh considerations, there would appear to be a case for the reconsideration of the general—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me make myself clear. It is not my fault that


the Instruction was put down when it was. I have to abide by the rules and practice of the House.

Mr. Dalyell: May I raise a different point of order, Mr. Speaker? Would this be a convenient moment at which to ask whether, in the light of the discussions last Thursday, you and the Chairman of Ways and Means and the other Chairmen have reached any decision on the guidelines that ought to be set out as to what is relevant and what is not relevant during the debate?

Mr. Speaker: The Chairman of Ways and Means, the Deputy Speaker, is in charge of the Committee stage. It is not for me to advise him.

Mr. Heffer: May I raise a point of order about your ruling, Mr. Speaker? I appreciate the great difficulty you experience on this matter. To be frank, however, may I appeal to you for a little more flexibility? This is a matter that deeply concerns hon. Members. They feel very strongly about it, and as part of this unfortunate—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to challenge my ruling in that way. I have made my position quite clear and I must observe the practice of the House of well over 100 years—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not taking points of order relating to the ruling I have given.

Mr. Abse: My point of order does not relate to that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to be as flexible as possible but I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I have given my ruling and that there can be no points of order on it. I see no advantage in taking the time of the House on this matter.

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does that mean that where an hon. Member feels that there is a matter that he must raise with you, if you have already given a legitimate ruling about it he is not allowed to raise it? If that is so, the whole concept of democratic discussions and debate is being eliminated in the House, and I for one would object to that most strongly.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The basis of democracy will be greatly challenged if the rulings of the Chair are continually challenged and not accepted.

Mr. Abse: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have given a ruling which makes it abundantly clear that it is not possible for the Instruction to be dealt with at this stage. However, the House, feeling some concern, as I am sure it does, would wish to have your guidance about the future. There is precedent which makes it quite clear that an Instruction can be given at any time before a guillotine motion is moved.
However, there is a second point upon which I particularly require guidance and which I am sure my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will bear in mind. It would appear from the direction given in 1931 by Mr. Speaker of that time that when a guillotine motion is moved it is possible for an amendment to be put down to that motion calling for the division of the Bill. That ruling was given in 1931 in relation to a Finance Bill.
Recognising, as I do, how bound you are by precedent, and how difficult it therefore is for you to move away from it, I believe it is important for the House to be told whether you take the same view as was taken by Mr. Speaker in 1931, should my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House presume at some stage to table a guillotine motion, that it would be open to us to put down an amendment to any guillotine motion. Of course, it would be possible for my right hon. Friend to take steps before then, as you have indicated, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to know therefore whether we may feel assured that on the basis of precedents—precedents which prevent us from dealing at this stage with the Instruction now on the Order Paper—you will adopt the approach adopted in 1931 and permit an amendment to the guillotine motion calling for the division of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has presented his point. I shall look into it and not reply off the cuff.

Mr. Mendelson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Recently my hon. Friend


the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) and I and other hon. Members respectfully suggested to you, after you had given a ruling and said that you could not permit discussion of it, that we did not wish to challenge your ruling but wanted to present a point of view. We asked whether it was possible to do so. We argued then, and I argue today, that it must be possible to present a point of view without challenging your ruling. After due consideration you told us the following day that we had been quite right in so raising the matter. Therefore, I submit, with respect, that it is quite right for us to raise the matter in the same way today, without in any way attempting to challenge your ruling.
If, as is within the recollection of the House, on an occasion not so far away it was possible long after the beginning of the debate to declare a Bill to be a Hybrid Bill, it must be possible to give very deep thought to the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) on this important matter of a Bill of the gravest constitutional importance for the future of the United Kingdom.
I am being deliberately brief, because no one has any intention of making light of this matter in order just to spend time. I believe that on this matter, having followed carefully the opinions expressed since Second Reading in the part of the United Kingdom that is most directly concerned by this particular demand, it

behoves all of us to give the most careful consideration before we come to a decision as to what the procedure should be. I therefore submit that my hon. Friends are absolutely right and that a decision on how you rule on the matter, Mr. Speaker, should be postponed for the usual period so that more counsel can be taken and a proper decision can be arived at.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman began by saying that he was not casting a reflection upon my ruling, and I believe that he meant it.
I have already given considerable thought to this question. I have taken advice. I have looked into the custom and the practices of the House. That was why I was so definite in my ruling. I could not promise the House that if I considered the matter for a fortnight I would come to a different decision. In the earlier case to which the hon. Gentleman referred, I was seeking to interpret the rules of the House and the Standing Orders and to follow them. That is what I am doing here. I am trying to abide by the proper practices of the House. I assure hon. Members that I have given the most careful consideration to this matter.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) and to his hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and Pontypool (Mr. Abse) for the way in which they have now accepted my ruling.

ELIMINATION OF VANDALISM (URBAN HOUSING AREAS)

3.53 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Steen: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provisions for the Collective Responsibility of Council tenants so as to eliminate vandalism in urban housing areas; and for associated purposes.
This Ten Minutes Rule Bill is rather like Beaujolais nouveau. It is the first Ten Minutes Rule Bill of this Session and it should quite fittingly deal with one of the most important subjects of our time and a major scourge of our society—vandalism.
While right hon. and hon. Members file out of the Chamber, they might reflect that vandalism is running riot in nearly every part of the country, and especially in our towns and cities. The cost of repairing the mindless destruction runs at £100 million a year. Paradoxically, that is more than the total amount spent by the Government under their urban aid programmes over the last nine years, which themselves have been aimed at reversing the backward spiral afflicting those who live in the poorest and most crowded parts of our cities and towns.
Vandalism appears to be at its worst where incidents of social malaise are highest. In the past this was in downtown areas which suffered very severe overcrowding and multi-social deprivation. Yet the destruction of the inner city housing areas and the transfer of people living there to the outer cities appears simply to have lifted social malaise from one area to another. From this it is evident that social malaise is of the person and the family rather than the environment.
It is now recognised that it by no means follows that people with poor housing facilities are more prone to committing acts of vandalism than people who live in three-bedroomed terraced houses on an outer city municipal estate with every modern convenience. On the contrary, the soullessness and apathy of many council estates have a more damaging effect upon the individual living there and his feelings of hopelessness, frustration and boredom than the close-

knit neighbourhood which was synonymous with the inner city. Rehousing people, therefore, from inner city back-to-backs to outer city impersonal, uncaring estates may well have aggravated vandalism rather than helped to cure it. Vandalism is only one expression of social malaise, and we must look at the whole problem if we are to make progress.
To date, the only remedy appears to be punishment—that is, if one catches the culprits. The punishments, though are often derisory, for the courts have no powers to do very much, nor are they able to make effective orders for restitution of the damaged property. What we must all acknowledge is that sanctions available up to now have proved singularly ineffective. To eradicate social malaise requires a total approach, but it can be reduced and in turn affect the extent of vandalism. That is the purpose of my Bill. It introduces an entirely new concept—that of collective communal responsibility.
It should help the development of greater disapproval from family, friends and neighbours of anti-social behaviour. A new code of ethics and standards would provide a powerful vandal disincentive. But disincentives, like punishments, are merely a negative approach. We must be willing to say and do something positive.
Communities will club together but they will not get to grips with destructive behaviour unless they are given true incentives. My Bill therefore offers just that—incentives to communities to rekindle neighbourhood responsibility and restore a feeling of, for and about community. Regeneration of family care and individual concern can take place and Parliament can help.
As a first step, every urban local authority would fix the maximum amount of money that it was willing to spend on making good damage caused by vandals to its property on a city-wide basis. A formula for determining that amount could be the average spent in, say, the last three years, plus an amount for inflation. Then the local authority would need to divide up that amount and allocate it to the municipal housing estates.
Vandalism is not confined to council property, but as municipal estates have


definable boundaries and all the property is council owned, that lends itself to this kind of initiative. Once the amount of money for the estate had been fixed by the local authority, it would invite all the voluntary groups, youth and community organisations and ratepayers and tenants associations, to form some kind of ad hoc organisation. Youth groups would be particularly involved and asked to work with their peer groups.
Those who are sceptical of this whole approach should know that in the Royal Southern Hospital area of Liverpool, where there is a most active neighbourhood council at work, young people were told that if they helped to reduce vandalism they would receive some help and support for their wish for a youth centre. In one year, thefts of and from motor cars were reduced by 43·3 per cent., as against a city average of 7·6 per cent. Those are startling figures and well illustrate my argument.
My Bill would ensure that if as a result of the combined efforts of the community the amount spent on repairing the work of vandals was less than the amount allocated, the money saved would be used to make extra provision of social facilities for the very people who had helped to root out vandalism. In addition, ad hoc committees might also take extra responsibility for getting repair work done, in which case the local authority would debit the account of the particular estate. This would localise the operation and give people in the area an opportunity to get really involved in repairing the work of vandals. It would provide work for unemployed local people. The work would cost a great deal less and would also be more speedily carried out.
At the same time, that would release new money to ameliorate the facilities in the area and provide greater opportunities and greater community provision. Each year, people would see the fruits of their labours and those communities would provide them with an incentive to continue their fight. If the cost of repair, though, exceeded the amount made available for repair work, the work would have to be deferred until the start of the next financial year. That is probably happening at the moment, by default rather than by design.
It is understandable that people on municipal housing estates may feel somewhat less obliged to maintain property than if it were their own. By offering the kind of incentives proposed by the Bill each individual would be given the opportunity to play his part, releasing fresh money and taking the responsibility off the local authority's shoulders and placing it back on to the community.
At a time when public spending cuts are widespread it would seem appropriate that repairing destructive acts should feature high on the list of cuts. My Bill provides an opportunity to convert and divert money and energy from antisocial and destructive acts into a productive and constructive programme. It is only in that way that the factors of social malaise will decline and collective community action will provide an answer.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. Stan Thorne: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Member seeking to oppose the motion?

Mr. Thorne: I am indeed, Sir. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I am fortunate in that I happen to be a constituent of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Waver-tree (Mr. Steen). I am further fortunate in that I live on one of the estates that I imagine he has in mind—

Mr. Steen: No.

Mr. Thorne: —a council housing estate which is known as Childwall Valley Estate. I am sure that the hon. Member knows that there was a piece of sociological research some years ago on this estate which attempted to obtain information from the tenants themselves about the sort of property that the council had built. The council had in mind the erection of a further estate, which is now known as the Netherley Estate. It was intended that what had been learned from the examinations of Childwall Valley would be of benefit in the architecture and planning arrangements involved in the new estate.
I do not want to go into detail, but anyone who knows anything about North-West England now knows that the Nether-ley Estate is possibly the worst council estate ever built. It is referred to by the


tenants as a barracks or prison. It contains all the prerequisites for vandalism to which the hon. Member seeks to draw attention in his Bill.
Few of us would claim to be able to give an adequate causal definition of vandalism on council housing estates. We could all argue about the nature of the people who occupy the houses but we would learn nothing from that sort of exercise. We might learn a great deal from looking at the type of housing that we have provided. If one provides a seven-storey block with 28 units of accommodation per floor, amounting to about 200 units in a block, and throws together families with small children, with little opportunity to pursue a worthwhile life, vandalism is likely.
The Bill suggests that people who occupy council estates with some social deprivation—which stems from a variety of causes—should be given the collective responsibility for vandalism which may

arise. That is something like putting the cart before the horse. It would be far more useful if we decided at local authority level when a new estate was planned to try to involve the people in some sort of planning exercise vis-à-vis the Skeffington Report of some years ago, which would produce the sort of housing which would tend to diminish the likelihood of vandalism.

The hon. Member's Bill, it seems from his speech, would do nothing to address our minds to the real cause of the problem, which is within society itself. On that basis, I call upon the House to refuse him permission to introduce it.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at the commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 143, Noes 151.

Division No. 32.]
AYES
[4.6 p.m.


Alison, Michael
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Arnold, Tom
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Neave, Airey


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Nelson, Anthony


Baker, Kenneth
Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)
Neubert, Michael


Banks, Robert
Goodhew, Victor
Osborn, John


Bell, Ronald
Grylls, Michael
Page, John (Harrow West)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Benyon, W.
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Page, Richard (Workington)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hastings, Stephen
Prior, Rt Hon James


Biffen, John
Hawkins, Paul
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Biggs-Davison, John
Hayhoe, Barney
Raison, Timothy


Blaker, Peter
Heseltine, Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Braine, Sir Bernard
James, David
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Brittan, Leon
Jessel, Toby
Rhodes James, R.


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Brotherton, Michael
Jopling, Michael
Ridsdale, Julian


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rifkind, Malcolm


Buck, Antony
Kershaw, Anthony
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Budgen, Nick
Knight, Mrs Jill
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Burden, F. A.
Knox, David
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Carlisle, Mark
Lawrence, Ivan
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lawson, Nigel
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Le Merchant, Spencer
Sainsbury, Tim


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lloyd, Ian
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Cockcroft, John
Loveridge, John
Shepherd, Colin


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Luce, Richard
Sims, Roger


Cope, John
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Skeet, T. H. H.


Cormack, Patrick
Macfarlane, Nell
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Costain, A. P.
MacGregor, John
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Madel, David
Speed, Keith


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Marten, Nell
Spence, John


Drayson, Burnaby
Mather, Carol
Steel, Rt Hon David


Durant, Tony
Mawby, Ray
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stokes, John


Elliott, Sir William
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stradling Thomas, J.


Eyre, Reginald
Mills, Peter
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Farr, John
Miscampbell, Norman
Tebbit, Norman


Fell, Anthony
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Monro, Hector
Wakeham, John


Fisher, Sir Nigel
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Fookes, Miss Janet
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wall, Patrick




Walters, Dennis
Wood, Rt Hon Richard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Weatherill, Bernard.
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Mr. Anthony Steen and


Wells, John
Younger, Hon George
Mr. Peter Bottomley.


Wiggin, Jerry






NOES


Ashton, Joe
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Phipps, Dr Colin


Atkinson, Norman
Grocott, Bruce
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Bagier, Gordon A. T
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Reid, George


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Bates, Alf
Hardy, Peter
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Bidwell, Sydney
Hatton, Frank
Roderick, Caerwyn


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Heffer, Eric S.
Rooker, J. W.


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Rowlands, Ted


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Huckfield, Les
Sandelson, Neville


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Sedgemore, Brian


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Silverman, Julius


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Skinner, Dennis


Cartwright, John
Hunter, Adam
Small, William


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Cohen, Stanley
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Spriggs, Leslie


Coleman, Donald
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Stallard, A. W.


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Crawford, Douglas
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Crawshaw, Richard
Kelley, Richard
Stott, Roger


Cronin, John
Kerr, Russell
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Kinnock, Neil
Tierney, Sydney


Dalyell, Tam
Lambie, David
Tinn, James


Davidson, Arthur
Lamborn, Harry
Torney, Tom


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Lamond, James
Urwin, T. W.


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Doig, Peter
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Dormand, J. D.
Litterick, Tom
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Loyden, Eddie
Ward, Michael


Eadie, Alex
McCartney, Hugh
Watkins, David


Edge, Geoff
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Watkinson, John


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Weetch, Ken


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Weitzman, David


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Welsh, Andrew


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Madden, Max
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Whitehead, Phillip


Evans, John (Newton)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Whitlock, William


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Mendelson, John
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Faulds, Andrew
Mikardo, lan
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, ltchen)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Moonman, Eric
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Forrester, John
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Woodall, Alec


Freeson, Reginald
Noble, Mike
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Oakes, Gordon
Young, David (Bolton E)


George, Bruce
Ovenden, John



Gilbert, Dr John
Palmer, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ginsburg, David
Park, George
Mr. Stan Thorne and


Golding, John
Pavitt, Laurie
Mr. Michael English.


Graham, Ted
Perry, Ernest

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — SCOTLAND AND WALES BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 13th January].

[Mr. OSCAR MURTON in the Chair]

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. I have raised with the Chair, as have many other hon. Members, the issue of the basis on which amendments would be ruled in order or out of order. As you know, this is a very delicate matter, and I believe that you have a statement to make.

The Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice. I have, of course, given the most careful and deep thought to the request which he made last Thursday.
The last thing that the Chair wishes is to be unduly restrictive. I can assure the hon. Member and the Committee as a whole that in deciding whether a particular amendment is or is not within the scope of the Bill, I shall endeavour to use exactly the same criteria as my predecessors have always used in the case of other equally long and complicated Bills.
If I were to attempt at this stage to give a summary of the whole scope of the Bill as I see it, I would be doing something which would, as far as I know, be unprecedented and would not, ultimately, be helpful to the Committee. I can, however, assure the hon. Gentleman that I have borne in mind very much his remarks and the question which he asked, and the ruling which I have given. I shall see to the best of my ability, and that of my colleagues who are in the Chair from time to time, that we deal with this question on the lines I have just mentioned.

Mr. Dalyell: Thank you very much, Mr. Murton.

Sir David Renton: On a point of order, Mr. Murton—and I shall be brief. Last Thursday I tabled

Amendment No. 456 to Clause 1, page 1, line 7, to leave out
changes in the government of
and to insert
constitutional changes affecting".
I was surprised to find that it was not on the Order Paper for today, and indeed that all other amendments to Clause 1, page 1, line 7, along with my amendment, had been swept off the Order Paper.
Nobody could argue that my amendment was beyond the scope of the Bill. It is mainly a drafting amendment but attempts to ensure that we get the drafting of the Bill and our attitude to it right.
I cannot challenge your ruling as to selection or non-selection of the amendment, or as to the wholesale sweeping off the Order Paper of a number of amendments to Clause 1, page 1, line 7, surprising though I find it. But in exercising your discretion with regard to a discussion on the Question, That the clause stand part of the Bill, I hope that you will bear in mind that I have not had the opportunity to raise the matter at this stage.

The Chairman: I give the right hon. and learned Gentleman the assurance for which he asks—namely, that it will be in order to discuss the matter on the Question, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Fred Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. I wish to seek your guidance on the propriety of certain events that took place last Thursday when it was confidently anticipated in the Press that today's debate would take place. A large number of Welsh Members, if not all, received through the post envelopes containing only a pristinely fresh copy of the South Wales newspaper, the Western Mail. There was no covering notice of any kind. They were House of Commons envelopes and they had been passed through the notice board in that they carried the stamp of Mr. Speaker.
I wish to notify you that I have informed Mr. Speaker's Secretary of this matter and I seek guidance as to the propriety of such matters happening at a time when a debate vital to the future of this nation, particularly of Wales, is taking place. It is one of a number of


incidents that I consider to be highly undesirable. This is particularly important because in regard to the published list of the names of people in several walks of life in Wales whose names appear in that newspaper some claim that they gave no permission for their names to be printed and others have denied the giving of permission. I consider that this is a matter on which I must seek your guidance.

The Chairman: This is a matter for Mr. Speaker and not for the incumbent of the Chair in Committee. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has taken the appropriate step, and in my view that is the right one. This is not a matter for the Committee.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. I understand and accept the reasonableness of what you said, but since that document was put through the letter board, presumably it went through Mr. Speaker and did not go down in the name of the person who put it there, obviously intending to influence the proceedings in this Committee. I wonder whether it is a matter for Mr. Speaker alone or a matter to be more widely considered by the Committee. Could we have a general indication from you as to how you regard the whole business of the distribution of influential literature through the board, anonymously, in a matter of such great importance?

The Chairman: As Chairman of this Committee, I have no power to take any action in this matter. It is a matter for Mr. Speaker. Since it has been reported to Mr. Speaker, that is how we should leave it.

Clause 1

EFFECT OF ACT

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in Clause 1, page 1, line 8, leave out 'and Wales as parts' and insert 'as a part'.

The Chairman: With this amendment we may take the following amendments:

No. 10, in page 1, line 8, leave out 'and Wales as parts' and insert 'as part'.

No. 11, in page 1, line 8, leave out
'Wales as parts of the United Kingdom. They'.

No. 56, in Clause 2, page 1, line 15, leave out 'and a Welsh Assembly'.

No. 63, in page 1, line 17, leave out 'each' and insert 'the'.

No. 71, in page 1, line 19, leave out and Wales respectively'.

No. 80, in page 2, line 1, leave out 'each' and insert 'the'.

No. 92, in Clause 3, page 2, line 12, leave out 'or Welsh'.

No. 107, in page 2, line 19, leave out 'or Welsh'.

No. 11, in page 2, line 23, leave out 'or Welsh'.

No. 255, in Schedule 1, page 69, line 6, leave out from 'Scotland' to 'submit' in line 7.

No. 263, in Schedule 1, page 70, line 2, leave out 'and Wales'.

Mr. Edwards: The effect of this amendment and those which we are to debate with it will be to exclude Wales from the provisions of the Bill. There seem to us to be two very good reasons why we should seek to do this. First, we believe that the scheme proposed for Wales is fundamentally unsound. Secondly, it seems to us right, as it did to a number of hon. Members who raised points of order earlier in the proceedings, that this House of Commons should have the opportunity to debate the principle of the Bill, so far as it affects Wales, in isolation, free of the quite different considerations that apply to Scotland.
We regard it as wholly regrettable that Scotland and Wales have been lumped together in one Bill, despite earlier statements by their spokesmen that a Labour Government would introduce separate legislation on Welsh matters, and despite the fact that on their own admission the situation in Wales is different from that in Scotland.
It cannot be challenged that many hon. Members on both sides cast their votes on Second Reading primarily on the basis of their assessment of the needs of Scotland and that their actions might have been different if they had been confronted with a purely Welsh Bill. Now they have a fresh opportunity to look at the Welsh provisions of the Bill on their own and


to express a view on them, for as The Guardian last Tuesday said:
There is no case for legislating for both settlements together".
In a few minutes I shall seek to explain why I think the proposals for Wales are fundamentally unsound, and I hope that, when I have done so, hon. Members who supported the Bill only because of what it proposes for Scotland will join me in the Division Lobby this evening.
As for those who refused to support the Bill on Second Reading, I must tell them that nothing has changed in the interval. The situation now is precisely what it was then, and they should repeat their opposition today. I say that the situation has not changed, and that is true; but a fresh argument has been introduced with which I shall now deal.
It is that, because there is to be a referendum it would be wrong to seek to drop Wales from the Bill because that would deny the people of Wales the opportunity to vote on the issue. What is being suggested is that because the Government have announced a referendum, this House is obliged to pass a Bill with which it may be in fundamental disagreement, and that Members of this House are to be deprived of their right—some will say their duty—to form their own judgments on the merits of this great constitutional issue.
I wholly reject that argument, which seems absurd and constitutionally improper. It is unthinkable that Members of the House of Commons should vote in favour of arrangements that they believe to be damaging simply to give the opportunity to the electorate later to express its opinion and perhaps to show greater sense and reject them.
We are confronted with what is essentially not a referendum Bill, but with a Bill setting out specific proposals for particular forms of Assembly for Scotland and Wales. On those proposals Parliament must pass judgment. I see no reason why this Committee or the House as a whole should be less critical in its examination because the ultimate choice may be taken elsewhere.

Mr. Kinnock: It is neither absurd nor a dereliction of duty so to approach this amendment that if it resulted in the withdrawal of Wales from the Bill the ghost of devolution would still exist in

Wales. If the people of Wales have an opportunity through a referendum to make a final, conclusive and authoritative decision on devolution, the whole nonsense of devolution will be buried for ever in Wales. That is not a dereliction of duty but a pursuit of the democratic voice.

Mr. Edwards: I take the point and I understand that position. But I find it incomprehensible that Members can vote for something with which they profoundly disagree in order that a referendum may take place. I will not give way on this point again until I have completed the whole of my argument about the referendum because it is an important matter and I want to deal with it completely.
4.30 p.m.
If the public are to be asked to express a verdict in a referendum, they are entitled to expect that Parliament will have already carried out its job of scrutinising the legislation as thoroughly as possible and that Parliament will not have included anything in the legislation with which it disagrees. No doubt, if the moment comes that is exactly the argument that the backers of the Bill will use. They will tell voters that they can confidently support the measure because it has been voted on and approved by Parliament. Supporters of the measure will say that these Assemblies have the stamp of parliamentary approval and that voters may make their choice confident that the arrangements have been subjected to critical scrutiny.
For that reason, it will not be enough to make minor modifications here and there to reduce the damage that we otherwise foresee that the Bill will create. Those who believe that the proposed scheme is fundamentally unsound have a duty to oppose it with all their energy. To suggest that we should do otherwise is to establish a remarkable principle—that is, that a simple declaration that there will be a referendum is enough to remove responsibility from Parliament. That is not a reasonable proposition.
There are differences of opinion, even among those who favour referenda, about the circumstances in which they should be held. I understand that point, although I doubt that you, Mr. Murton, would permit me to argue it in detail at this time. There will be an opportunity for that later.
I have consistently advanced the view, on practical and constitutional grounds, that a referendum should be held on this issue only after the legislation has been passed. Others take the view that it would be preferable to have a consultative referendum prior to the legislative process. Whatever one's view, it is clear that the referendum issue—its form and its timing—is entirely separate from the other issues upon which the Bill legislates. It cannot be right, in any circumstances, to pass bad legislation simply in order to create a situation in which a referendum may be held. Each issue must be decided on its merits. If the House wishes to create a situation in which a referendum may be held, it could do so whether or not this amendment is passed.
The essential point is that Parliament should be its own judge on the merits of each issue and that Parliament should exercise its judgment unfettered and to the best of its ability. I deeply resent the suggestion that has been made outside the House that, in acting on that principle, I and those who think as I do are acting dishonourably. On the contrary, we would be failing in our duty if we did otherwise. It is on that basis that I shall now present my reasons for believing these proposals to be fundamentally unsound and why I shall urge all those who oppose the Government's scheme for Wales to support the amendment.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman advocates that Parliament should vote as Parliament thinks. Has he noticed how the result of the Second Reading Division has been used, not least by some of his hon. Friends? We were told before Second Reading that we should not vote against the Bill because that would be denying discussion. Yet after Second Reading we are asked how we can frustrate a measure that has received a majority of 45 votes in the House of Commons.

Mr. Edwards: It has always been my view that these proposals would be bad for Wales. I said so on Second Reading and that is why I voted as I did on Second Reading. I pointed out at that time that the Government appeared to have chosen from all the possible options the permutation that would offer the least

chance of success for Wales. I explained why I thought that there is no sustainable middle ground between a system based on a structure in which one Government is responsible for the whole of the United Kingdom and a federal structure with a clear definition of powers and other safeguards.
According to this Bill, there would be created in Wales a second Government with sufficient power to render the intentions of this Parliament totally ineffective but with insufficient power to improve the economic health of Wales or to satisfy anyone who wants a fundamental change in the situation there. That is a recipe for disaster, for frustration and for bitterness, particularly at a time when a nationalist party waits, itching to exploit the opportunity that will be given to it.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: I am interested in what has been said about federalism. What is the hon. Gentleman's personal position and the position of his party on federalism? Does he support a federal system and does his party advocate one?

Mr. Edwards: I suggest that the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) turns to my Second Reading speech, to which I referred earlier. I dealt with the matter at length and made the position clear. It would not be right to delay the Committee by repeating the arguments.

Mr. Tom Ellis: Since the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) advanced, as the first of his two arguments supporting the amendment, his view that the scheme for Wales is unsound, and since he and his Opposition Front Bench colleagues did not oppose the proposals for Scotland, may I take it that the scheme for Scotland is sound?

Mr. Edwards: That is absurd. We made it clear that there are many objections to the Scottish proposals, but we said that the degree of our objection to what is proposed for Wales was of a different order because the proposed fundamental structure for Wales is unsound and that it would be very difficult to amend it.
The proposal for Wales is that the first stage of legislation would be passed at Westminster and that the second stage


—the vitally important secondary legislation—would be produced in Cardiff. The Assembly would also be responsible for implementing legislation. In practice, it means that the Westminster Parliament could—and in many cases would—find it totally impossible to enforce its will.
We have had experience on controversial political matters of the difficulties that arise when a local authority is reluctant to operate an Act with which it disagrees. I see my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas), who has had experience of dealing with such matters while in office, nodding his head in agreement. The difficulty would be aggravated tenfold if secondary legislation were under the control of an Assembly which claimed to speak for a nation, and which would have moral and political authority to challenge the central Government.
Members of the present Government may suffer from the smug delusion that there would be cases only of a Labour-controlled Assembly challenging a Tory Government at Westminster. That is a prospect that they may possibly view with relish, for they have never hesitated to encourage subordinate organisations to challenge the authority of Tory Governments. I suspect that it may not be quite as simple as that, particularly when times are difficult. I can foresee Labour Governments faced with a combination of political power in the Assembly utterly unwilling to translate the Government's intentions into practice.
Nor will it be just the Government at Westminster who find themselves in difficulties under this remarkable scheme. The process of government is a two-way movement; this is something on which the Kilbrandon Commissioners had a great deal to say. On the one hand, laws are made effective and, on the other, administrative experience is translated into fresh law. But now there is to be a divorce; the unity is to be broken. The Assembly, stimulated by its own experience, may wish to create fresh laws with which the Westminster Parliament has no sympathy.
A second feature of the scheme is also a recipe for dissension. The Assembly is to be given responsibility for the administration of most of the social services, but it will have no control over the economic activity which finances those

activities. The electorate will therefore look to the Assembly for houses, hospitals, schools and the whole range of public services which they now expect, and when the Assembly fails to provide them or when the services fall short of public expectations, the Assembly will naturally blame the Government at Westminster, with their responsibility for economic management.
At present, when a Government are held responsible in such circumstances, the people may, when the time comes, remove that Government from power and elect another. When the Assembly is established in Cardiff, the cry will be not just to change the political party in power but to change the seat of government itself. It would not be an Administration which would be sacrificed but, infinitely more precious, the system of government.
A system of government which fails can be changed, but to design a system which, by its very nature, will stimulate a demand for change is a peculiar form of madness. It is a curious and novel constitutional concept that we should seek to build instability into the structure from the outset.
This is not some strange aberration of the Conservative Party or a delusion of mine. The belief that there is a fundamental instability in the Government's proposals is the one point on which the nationalist parties and my party agree. That is why they support the Bill and the principal reason that we oppose it.
The justification given for this measure is that the Welsh people should be able to control their own affairs and that the system of government would be more democratic. The first argument gives the impression that the decision-making process at Westminster works rather like a giant international rugby championship in which every decision is taken on the basis of Wales versus England or England versus Scotland, with the interests of Wales and England being in continual competition and with English Members trampling through the Lobbies like an enormous scrum in which they have a huge weight advantage.
It is said that this element of rivalry has entered into things. Looking back at my time in Parliament, I find it hard to think of times when the interests of


Wales and England have been in conflict, and on those few occasions I have not always been aware that I have been on the losing side.
4.45 p.m.
Those living in Welsh constituencies have at least the same say in this Parliament as those in English constituencies. Their affairs are debated at least as often, the votes of their Members count for at least as much. Their interests on almost all issues are shared with similar constituencies throughout the United Kingdom.
I said "as least as much" because the truth is that we have advantages; we have a Secretary of State in Cabinet, a Welsh Office and our own Grand Committee. With the aid of those instruments we and our Scottish colleagues, who have similar tools of government, usually extract a little more than we might expect if we represented English regions. We also seem to get a pretty good share of the great offices of State.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): The hon. Gentleman has spoken about the absence of a conflict of interests, but does he not think there was a conflict of interests between the majority of those representing Welsh constituencies and the majority representing English constituencies when the last so-called reform of local government was pushed through this House? The majority of Welsh Members voted against it, but were unable to prevent that law from being imposed upon them.

Mr. Edwards: The considerations which affect local government in England and Wales are similar and the objections to local government reform heard in English constituencies are almost identical to the Welsh objections. I am glad that one of the great officers of State from Wales has intervened at this stage. He proves my point that the Welsh play a full part in the government of the United Kingdom. I fear that the price for giving Wales a greater say in its own affairs will be that it will have less say in the affairs of the United Kingdom as a whole.

Mr. John Stokes: Has my hon. Friend forgotten

that in terms of population Wales and Scotland are over-represented in this House? Is that not an additional advantage for them?

Mr. Edwards: I was coming to that point. It is clear that demands for the reduction of that over-representation will be made increasingly. The reasons were eloquently spelled out in earlier debate by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who presented the argument powerfully. I have no doubt that it will be repeated.
I do not see how the influence of Wales on the affairs of the United Kingdom can fail to be reduced, not just for the reasons given a moment ago but for other reasons as well. If a range of responsibilities is transferred to the Assembly so that Welsh Members no longer deal on a day-to-day basis with great social issues, I cannot believe that they will carry much weight in the consideration of these matters at Westminster, and it will be a great deal less likely that Welsh and Scottish Members will ever again hold high office in Departments dealing with subjects such as health and education which, in future, will be the primary responsibility of the Assembly in Cardiff.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Will it not be the ultimate absurdity that hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies will be able to vote and speak on matters affecting transport and education in England but not on those matters when they affect their own constituents?

Mr. Edwards: Welsh Members will have some power in relation to legislation, but not when there are general debates on these subjects. Their position will be different from that of the Scots, and the proposed scheme would produce many anomalies and difficulties that should cause this House considerable concern.
When the Secretary of State is deprived of a range of responsibilities, he will not speak with the same authority in Cabinet. His position, which, in part at least, will be that of messenger boy for the Assembly, will be peculiarly uncomfortable. It is argued that all this will not matter because government will be brought closer to the people. The truth


is that in many important matters it will be taken further from the people.
We have to consider the effect on the individual citizen. A reorganisation of local government
so soon after the last one would be bound to create confusion in the mind of the average elector. It is also probable that he would feel more remote from the affairs of a local government body administering services over a much wider area".
Those are not my words. They are the Government's own words in their consultative document on England, in paragraph 83. Paragraph 54, arguing the need for further reorganisation of local government if regional authorities were established, states categorically:
Many functions of the counties would need to be raised to the new regional authorities".
If that is true of England—I believe that it is, and the reasons for it were amply spelled out in the Redcliffe-Maud Report on Local Government—it is true of Wales also. Many of the electors of Pembroke feel very remote from local government in Carmarthen. It is nothing to what they will feel about the Assembly in Cardiff, and for the people in North Wales and rural Wales the prospect is depressingly bleak.
We should be giving more responsibility to local government, but the Government instead are reducing it. It is at this point that we always hear about the nominated bodies, which have achieved in the eyes of devolutionists an almost sacred symbolic significance. The House should clearly understand that almost all the nominated bodies will continue to exist even if the Assembly comes into being. They will exist because there are very good reasons for having nominated bodies.
I recall the two Under-Secretaries of State for Wales spelling those reasons out recently in our debates on the Welsh Development Agency, the Rural Development Board for Wales, and the measure which established the Land Authority for Wales. It is surely curious that, at a time when the Government were preparing this legislation on the ground that the nominated bodies were so monstrous, they were passing through the House a string of measures which established new nominated bodies. Of course the nominated bodies will continue to exist. The

only significant difference will be that they will be nominated by the Chief Executive sitting in Cardiff instead of by the Secretary of State sitting in Cardiff. It remains to be seen whether that will be an improvement.
In consecutive debates, I have returned to the subject of the nominated bodies. In the White Paper debate, I went through the list and explained one by one why the great majority would continue to operate almost unchanged. I received no answer from Ministers. In the Welsh Grand Committee debate, I spoke about the problems in a democracy of reconciling the need for efficient executive bodies with the desire for debate and parliamentary control, and I suggested that, in practice, ordinary people are likely to find that life goes on just as before. Again, there was no response to these arguments by Ministers.
I returned to the subject again on Second Reading and put the view that the whole point about the consequences for democracy and the nominated bodies was absurdly exaggerated. Once again, there was no reply from the Government. In all three debates, Ministers neither denied what had been said nor attempted to refute the criticisms. They surely should begin to understand that it is not enough to utter magic spells about nominated bodies or to produce a string of generalisations about them.
At the end of the day, the disillusionment—indeed, the bitterness—of Mr. and Mrs. Average Welshman at being misled will be very considerable. Despite the great expectations that have been raised, most people simply will not notice any difference about their relationships with the nominated bodies. What they will notice is the cost and bureaucracy of the Assembly.
Faced with the cutback that is taking place in public expenditure, particularly by the local authorities, there is mounting anger in Wales at the cost of the Government's proposals. We do not know exactly who is going to pay—that is to say, we do not know whether it is to be the United Kingdom taxpayer as a whole or whether we in Wales are to have the cost deducted from the block grant. We know what the nationalists would like the position to be, because they believe in independence as long as others


pay the bill. They have just produced an economic paper calling for massive public expenditure cuts of about £9,000 million, as long as the whole lot falls on England and Wales escapes unscathed—an interesting exercise in political cynicism. Whoever pays, there is no getting away from the fact that the Assembly will produce nothing additional in the way of economic resources but its cost will deprive the people of hospitals, schools and social services which they could otherwise have had.
It is repeatedly denied that the Bill will produce another tier of Government. What cannot be denied is that it will produce a massive increase in the bureaucracy. The Secretary of State loves to tell us that the price of democracy is worth paying. But it is not democracy that we are going to be paying for—it is bureaucracy. At a time when we need less government, we are going to have more of it; at a time when we need simplicity, we are going to have complexity; at a time when we need economy, we are going to have extravagance; at a time when we need unity, we are going to have division.
I have put the case for rejecting the Government's proposals for Wales on practical grounds. I hope that that case will be answered with practical arguments. The Secretary of State may be tempted—he usually is—to abuse the Conservative Party, but that would be no answer to the points we make and would represent an attack on the very large number of people outside our ranks who agree with us on this issue.
There are Socialists in this Committee as well as Conservatives who will resent any suggestion that, in fighting for what we believe to be the best solution, we have not got the interests of the people at heart. The Secretary of State may argue, as others do, that the status quo is no longer an option, but there is no point in abandoning the status quo if that act of abandonment will produce no improvement in government. The status quo is an option and must be an option if that is likely to produce better government than the alternative.
On Second Reading, when describing our own proposals, first spelled out by

my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) in his Llandrindod speech in 1974, I said that I felt no sense of embarrassment that they were modest and evolutionary. I believe that they have the virtue, because of their modesty, that they are likely to work. We press for the abandonment of the Government's proposals for the simple but important reason that we think that they will not work, and when everything else has been said and done, and when all the heat and emotion has been dissipated, that, on its own, is a more than adequate reason for this amendment to be passed by the House.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: We have just heard a typical Conservative speech from the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards), and it can be summed up in two words—"no change". Those two words have landed the Conservative Party in trouble throughout the years—this lack of imagination, this defence of the status quo at all costs.
The hon. Gentleman again rehearsed the arguments for a separate Welsh Bill. The only object of a separate Bill for Wales would be to delay the implementation of the proposals for Wales, and that would be objectionable. The argument for having two Bills is based not on principle but on expediency, and, recalling the arguments of the Conservative Party during the passage of the Local Government Act, the hon. Gentleman's remarks today can only be regarded as humbug.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: But when we recall the remarks of right hon. Members opposite at the time and their clear statements of intention, we can only regard the right hon. Gentleman's remarks as humbug. We have no alternative.

Mr. Hughes: On the contrary. This is a totally different situation. Anticipating with the procedural contortions of the hon. Member and his hon. Friends, he knows perfectly well that the consequence of having two Bills would be to postpone the Welsh measure well into the future.

Mr. Leo Abse: Is it not the case that representations were repeatedly made to the Government that there should be two separate Bills? They


were made from this side of the House as well as from the Opposition Benches. They are alleged to have been carefully considered by the former Leader of the House, Mr. Edward Short, who still came back with the dusty answer that we would have a Bill in which all these matters would be so appallingly enmeshed and entangled.
What has really happened is that we are presented with this Bill because there is a Machiavellian desire on the part of the Secretary of State, and those who support him, to get the Bill through while clinging hard to the kilts of the oil sheikhs. It really does not do for my right hon. Friend to talk about expediency and humbug. The hypocrisy is coming from those who are denying Wales the right to have its own separate Bill.

Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend is avoiding my main point. If I believed that my hon. Friend or the hon. Member for Pembroke were genuinely in favour of making progress with a separate Welsh Bill, I should be more inclined to support them, but the sole reason they now advocate a separate Welsh Bill is to make it secondary to the Scottish Bill and to postpone it as long as possible. It is not my right hon. Friend who is Machiavellian but my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Pembroke.
The arguments of the hon. Member for Pembroke that a Welsh Assembly will be in constant conflict—and clash—with the United Kingdom Government are equally fallacious. The hon. Gentleman has a singular lack of faith in the Welsh people and their political maturity.
It is the case that it is dangerous to make comparisons with the former Stormont Government in Northern Ireland. But if one leaves aside the special circumstances of Northern Ireland, it is a fact that there was remarkable co-operation between the Stormont Government and successive Governments in this country for 50 years. Furthermore, any differences which exist between Wales and England, and Scotland and England, are minimal compared with the difficulties that existed in Ulster during that half century.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman

whether in his opinion the proposal to give these powers to the Welsh Assembly is to enable it to administer in the same way as England, or differently from England?

Mr. Hughes: I shall come to the right hon. Gentleman's point during my speech, and I shall return to the points raised by the hon. Member for Pembroke with regard to a referendum.
In the numerous debates on devolution that we have had in the House over the last three years, several themes have emerged. We have had arguments about structure, about functions and finance, about the relationship between the proposed Assemblies to Parliament and the central Government as well as the relationship with local authorities in Wales and Scotland. All this is right and proper because these are the central issues in the Bill. During the coming weeks we shall be debating them in greater detail in Committee.
But other themes of a more general character have developed during the course of our debates. One is the argument that there is no authority for this Bill. It has been made plain in the House that that argument could not be sustained. The evidence justifying the Government in introducing the Bill is conclusive. I do not propose to weary the House today with a repetition of it. The record is quite clear.
But, as the months have passed, one theme has increasingly transcended all the others. More vocal, clamorous and insistent has been the call for a referendum. Some of my hon. Friends have been consistent on this for a long time and the Conservative Party has taken a similar view. They have argued, with some confidence, that the great majority of people in Wales are opposed to devolution, and to the Bill, and that because of its constitutional implications they should be given the opportunity to take part in a referendum.
The clarion call has been "Let the people of Wales decide for themselves". One could quote extensively from the speeches of my hon. Friends and of hon. Members opposite. In this brief speech I propose to give only one quotation because it sums up the general attitude of the protagonists. I quote from the


speech of the hon. Member for Pembroke when he said:
At the moment I am pointing out that there is an enormous public demand for a referendum in Wales, and if we are arguing about democracy we must be cautious in resisting that demand. I do not remember any single issue where there seemed to have been such a strong demand in Wales. The Government would make a great mistake if they set themselves firmly and irrevocably against this proposition.
The hon. Gentleman went on:
the Secretary of State should keep an open mind on the issue of a referendum and consider most carefully using this particular tool to obtain a consensus in Wales for our future constitutional arrangements."— [Welsh Grand Committee, 7th April 1976; c. 15–16.]
Personally, and for reasons that I have given in the House many times, I have grave reservations about the referendum as a constitutional device. I may be wrong but that is the view I hold. During our debates on the Common Market we were told that it was "a once for all exercise". It has not taken long to disprove that claim. We are now in a matter of months to have another referendum. So be it. The Government have now made this major concession and the people of Wales and Scotland are to be given the opportunity to vote.

Mr. Dalyell: I say this as an interrogatory question. If the people of Wales and Scotland are to have a referendum on the same day, there might be confusion that they are having a referendum on the same issue. But that is far from the case. The proposals for Scotland are totally different from the proposals for Wales. Is it not misleading that there should be a referendum on the same day, in particular if Scots and Welshmen living and earning their living in England are to vote in that referendum?

Mr. Hughes: I am glad that my hon. Friend has drawn a distinction between the Scottish and Welsh proposals. No doubt the point that he has raised will be appropriate for the debate that we shall have on the details of the referendum. I would not care to predict today with any certainty how Welsh people will vote in a referendum, although I hope that they will vote for these proposals.
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's views that the proposals are modest compared with the Scottish measures. They

are not a major constitutional change. [Interruption.] I regret that hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench disagree with me. I would call in aid the memorandum which the Law Society has today produced. It has some constructive criticisms to make of the Bill but it says:
The designation of devolved matters in relation to Wales is of much less profound constitutional significance than that in relation to Scotland.
It is not only the Law Society which believes that. The three hon. Members who represent Plaid Cymru take a similar view, I am sure.

Mr. Anderson: Is not my right hon. Friend missing the point, which is that there is in these proposals a certain dynamism which leads us far further along the road to separation? It is rather similar to the argument about it being only a very little baby. Many of us fear the road along which we are travelling.

Mr. Hughes: We have dealt with the "slippery slope" argument many times, but there are lessons in history which show equally that the failure to take reasonable steps in time compels Governments in the course of time, to take far more radical steps. I am surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), with his Welsh background, has not appreciated the lessons of Welsh and of Irish history.

Mr. Kinnock: It would be sterile to get into an argument about what are "major" and what are "minor" constitutional changes and about whether history is not more littered with the rewards of appeasement than with the necessity to make radical changes as a result of postponing modest changes. The latter is a matter that we can take up at greater length in later debates. However, since my right hon. Friend quoted the Law Society memorandum in aid of his proposition that this is a minor change, perhaps I may be allowed to read these words to him:
The constitutional changes proposed are the most fundamental of their kind in Great Britain for centuries, and raise complex and far-reaching problems.
I quote in my aid the White Paper (Command 6348) produced by Her Majesty's Government in November 1975.

Mr. Hughes: I was dealing specifically with the Welsh proposals. There is no


argument that, compared with the Scottish measures, they are modest. That is what the Law Society says, and I do not think that any hon. Member can disagree with them. But it would be intolerable and grossly insulting to the people of Wales, whatever their present views, to say to them "We are now taking Wales out of the Bill, and you will not get your vote, after all." As I understand it from the speech of the hon. Member for Pembroke, that is the stance of the Conservative Party.

Mr. Abse: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hughes: My speech will become very disjointed.

Mr. Abse: This is a Committee stage.

Mr. Hughes: Very well. I shall give way to my hon. Friend. He deserves his chance.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Abse: If my right hon. Friend regards this matter as so peripheral and so modest, why is he making this enormous somersault and saying that he now belatedly accepts the idea of a referendum? Am I to understand that he really does not want a referendum, or that he does? The only slippery slope that we are seeing in my right hon. Friend's contribution so far is that he is sliding in a number of directions all at the same time.

Mr. Hughes: My difficulty is that I find it impossible to be as Machiavellian as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse). He imputes motives to me that I do not possess. I thought that I had made it clear that I did not like referenda as a constitutional device. However, now that the Government have agreed to have a referendum, in response to Opposition Members and specifically to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool, I believe that the people of Wales should be given the opportunity to participate in it. What my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool aims to do, with the hon. Member for Pembroke, is to destroy the Welsh part of the Bill and so prevent the Welsh people being given the opportunity to express their view.

Dr. Colin Phipps: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hughes: If these interruptions continue, my speech will read like a Welsh play.

Dr. Phipps: rose—

The Chairman: Order. The Chair must protect the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes).

Mr. Hughes: I am obliged for your protection, Mr. Murton.
Last April, the hon. Member for Pembroke said about the call for a referendum:
…If we are arguing about democracy we must be cautious in resisting that demand for for a referendum."— [Official Report, Welsh Grand Committee, 7th April 1976, c. 15.]
I am not sure that I understand his brand of democracy. Is he afraid that the people of Wales will not vote in the way that he would like them to?

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: In order to create this referendum, does the right hon. Gentleman think that this House of Commons is obliged to pass bad legislation? Surely there are other ways of arriving at a referendum, if the House wishes, without having to vote for measures with which it disagrees.

Mr. Hughes: I will deal with that point immediately, and then I shall bring my speech to a conclusion because I know that other hon. Members hope to take part in the debate.
First, I remind the hon. Member for Pembroke that this House has already given the Bill a Second Reading and agreed to it in broad principle. To debate it in detail in Committee, as we should, is one thing. To destroy it in Committee and deprive the people of Wales of the chance to express their view is quite another.
Secondly, again in reply to the hon. Member for Pembroke, I would remind him that in Committee last Thursday we refused by a very large majority to exclude Scotland from the Bill. It would be offensive to the people of Wales to treat them differently. That is how it would be regarded in Wales.

Mr. Dalyell: If it is so offensive to treat the people of Wales differently from the people of Scotland in this regard, why not in the more substantial regard of totally different schemes?

Mr. Hughes: I should have to speak for three-quarters of an hour if I tried to deal with that.

Mr. Dalyell: There is plenty of time.

Mr. Hughes: All that I am asking the Committee at the moment is for an opportunity to debate whether there should be advances towards the Scottish position or some other modifications in the Welsh proposals.
At present, there are differences of view on this issue in Wales. But there will be a united view throughout Wales if this attempt succeeds. I would not care to predict the repercussions and the consequences of treating us in such a fashion.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I respectfully suggest that the question asked by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is extremely pertinent to this debate. Will the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) at least indicate his view? Does he believe that the powers conferred in this Bill are about right, too much, or too little?

Mr. Hughes: I regret that the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) has not taken the trouble to listen to me on previous occasions on this issue. Broadly, I think that the proposals in the Bill are right. I have reservations about some matters of detail and I shall refer to them in detail if the Bill proceeds through its Committee stage. But, broadly, I think that they are reasonable. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.
I believe that it is our task to proceed to a constructive examination of these Welsh proposals in Committee. I hope that we shall have enough sense to enable this to be done.

Sir David Renton: The Committee may wonder why I seek to intervene in a debate about Wales. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I confess that I have no Welsh blood. I represent an English constituency. It is not only because I adore Wales and the Welsh that I seek to intervene. It is because, like all the members of the Kilbrandon Commission, I favoured a directly-elected Assembly for Wales. However, we were divided four ways as to what kind of Assembly there should be, and what powers it should have.

Three of us, including myself, wanted a consultative and advisory Assembly with no legislative or executive powers.
At the time the Kilbrandon Report was published I issued a personal statement in which I said:
Wales has for centuries had the same legal system as England, and there is neither the need nor the wide demand for Wales to have a separate legislature. Indeed, it is significant that in their evidence to the Commission neither the Welsh Council, the Association of Welsh Local Authorities, nor the Welsh Counties Committee urged that there should be one".
I must say that with the opportunity to reflect since then and study the legislation of this House which affects Wales, I really cannot see what advantage would be derived for the Welsh people from having a separate legislature.
What about the transfer of the mass of executive functions from the Secretary of State to the Welsh Assembly? It would be a confusing and costly process, especially as the Secretary of State would still be answerable to this House of Commons for a wide range of matters. I am afraid that he would administer these matters, for which the Welsh Assembly would also have a responsibility, by breathing down the necks of the Welsh.
Schedule 4, invoked by Clause 24, shows that there are no fewer than 35 enactments, many of them very important, on which the Assembly cannot act at all without the consent of the Secretary of State. In Schedule 5, powers can be exercised by either of them concurrently. That reminds one of the old Welsh definition of the difference between a collision and an explosion. It is:
In a collision there you are but in an explosion, well where are you?
Even in fully devolved matters the Assembly is not entirely free to act as it thinks best, because if what it proposes to do involves or is affected by the implementation of any EEC obligations, it will not be able to act, except with the permission of the Government as expressed in an Order in Council. The Assembly will have to go through all that palaver. I ask hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies to consider all the implications of that, because the EEC obligations now include the whole of agriculture, which is the largest industry in Wales, coal and steel, because


we are in the European Coal and Steel Community, and an ever-widening range of economic and social matters.
Therefore, it seems to me that the provisions of this Bill are a blueprint for confusion and conflict.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) in an exceedingly constructive and telling speech, said that the two charming Welsh Members of the Royal Commission are demanding that we pass these unworkable proposals so that the Welsh people can decide whether they want them or not, and the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) said that we should let the Welsh people decide for themselves. I say with respect to him—and I have a long-standing regard for him—that we do not do any service to the Welsh people by asking them even to consider this incomprehensible hotch-potch of overlapping and conflicting responsibilities. It is no compliment to say to them, in effect, "Here is a dog's dinner of devolution. Eat it, or do not touch it, as you please."

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Would not the right hon. and learned Member agree that this is just the beginning of the Committee stage which gives us an opportunity to put improvements into the Bill and to make it more acceptable to the Welsh people in a referendum? If he is concerned about overlapping responsibilities, would he support a federal system, which would avoid that?

Sir David Renton: As I explained when we debated the White Paper last January, along with other members of the Kilbrandon Commission I reject the federalist argument. As for amending this Bill and knocking it into a rational shape which the Welsh people can understand, this is not feasible while all the Welsh provisions are so interlocked with those affecting Scotland with its different legal system. Scottish legislation has been separately enacted for Scotland, while legislation for Wales has been enacted for the whole of the United Kingdom, or for England and Wales jointly.

Mr. Tom Ellis: If the right hon. and learned Member believes that the provisions for Wales in this Bill will lead to confusion and difficulties in our

relationship with the EEC, would he not agree, on the ground of the comparative modesty of the proposals for Wales compared with those for Scotland, that there is even greater confusion in relation to Scotland? Will he accept that some of us cannot help but feel, with the greatest respect, that his argument is both specious and disingenuous?

Sir David Renton: I would have to make another speech in order to deal with that intervention. I simply say to the hon. Member that I do not consider that the proposals for Wales or Scotland are either modest or workable. I promised to make a short speech and I am not prepared to follow up that interjection.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Taking up the point about the separate legal system in Scotland, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman assist the Committee in saying how this affects the issue? For example, how does it affect roads, housing, health and local government or, indeed, any other matter on which the Welsh Assembly will be called to make a decision?

Sir David Renton: If we do come to consider in detail at a later part of the Committee stage the exact functions for Wales, the hon. Gentleman will have a clearer understanding then of the confusion which is bound to arise. I have drawn attention already to the conflicts on issues where the Secretary of State's consent is needed, on issues where either the Secretary of State or the Assembly can exercise concurrent responsibility, and on EEC issues. That is quite enough confusion to start with without going further into details of the Bill, which we shall examine much more deeply later.
I conclude by saying that in my opinion the Welsh, in the government of Britain, have never had it so good as they have today. Even in the days of Lloyd George they never had it so good. Mr. Speaker, the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary are all native Welshmen. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the House of Commons represent Welsh constituencies. There is a spendid native Welshman as the Secretary of State for Wales, and there are half a dozen to a dozen other Welsh


Members occupying important positions in the Government.

Mr. Dalyell: The right hon. Gentleman should not forget Roy Jenkins, who is President of the European Commission.

Sir David Renton: I say to my Welsh Friends, for whom I have enormous affection and admiration—I have spent many happy times in Wales—let them continue, subject to a change of Government, of course, with the job which they do as well as they can of governing of Britain. I suggest that they will do that job very much better than the Welsh people are likely to do it if we present them with this dog's dinner of an attempt at devolution.

5.30 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Morris): It would, perhaps, be of assistance to the Committee if I intervened at this stage. We have heard from the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) a regurgitation in large part of his Second Reading speech. If I do not follow his invitation and deal with each and every point, it is because I do not intend to repeat myself. I am sure that there will be ample opportunity in the course of our deliberations on the Bill to deal with the points raised, in particular with those regarding the nominated bodies.
I was flattered by the reference made by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) to the number of Welsh office holders. I confess that I have no immediate ambition to become Secretary of State for Scotland. The difficulty for the Opposition is that there is hardly ever an opportunity for an elected Welsh Tory Member to hold office in any Tory Government.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: Does not the Secretary of State agree that the reference made by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) to the eminent Welshmen in political positions was an indication not that Wales has never had it so good but that Welshmen have never had it so good?

Mr. Morris: I am sure that Tory Members hope that the pattern will be repeated.
Hardly anything that happens in the House of Commons surprises me, not even this attempt in Committee, so soon after the House of Commons gave a Second Reading to the Scotland and Wales Bill, to strike out Wales, going to the very heart of the Bill as it affects the Principality.

Mr. Tom Ellis: Is it humbug?

Mr. Morris: I would not use a word as strong as that, neither would I follow the abuse that has been hurled at me from both sides of the House about this measure. I hope to deal with the matter as objectively as I can.
I have already stated that the status quo is not an option for Wales. I have challenged the Government's critics as to what they would do. What are their alternatives? All we get are a few flimsy, half-baked proposals—for example, to strengthen the Welsh Office, and to increase the power of a nonelected advisory council. A few other things may be thrown in to make the weight.
Over the years the Welsh Office has acquired various new functions, but the problem now is how to increase democratic control over the exercise of those functions and other important central government functions in Wales. Even on purely administrative decentralisation, the Tory record is poor. In considering the sincerity of the Tories' approach, we should remind ourselves that they opposed the setting up of the Welsh Office. When the Welsh Office was being set up they did not understand its implications. When they were in power before 1964 they ensured that there was no proper executive responsibility or a separate Department of State.
My contention is that they did not understand the significance of the event when my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), the then Prime Minister set up the Welsh Office. In the first Welsh Grand Committee debate after the setting up of the Welsh Office the then Tory spokesman for Wales, the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph)—he is still


with us, though not present today; perhaps his interest in Welsh affairs was transient—in summing up his case in the debate on the functions of the Secretary of State for Wales and constitutional changes said:
I will sum up my case by these last words: Wales has a widely respected Minister with a sonorous new title, but his powers have been cut".—[Official Report, Welsh Grand Committee, 16th December 1964; c. 9.]
He could find nothing to say about the late Mr. James Griffiths other than that he was a widely respected Minister with a sonorous new title. That was the official Opposition Front Bench former Minister for Welsh Affairs taking the Welsh Grand Committee into his confidence on what had taken place.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that Deeside, for example, has a great affinity with Merseyside? A natural region with an economic and cultural centre could be based on Deeside and Merseyside rather than on the artificial division which is now likely to produce a rigid barrier between the North region and Merseyside? What will be the position of Englishmen who live on Deeside but who come from Merseyside, and the people who live in Liverpool but who come from Wales?

Mr. Morris: I fully understand my hon. Friend's contention and the economic draw between one area and another, but I can hardly see how his intervention arises from my delineation of the basis for the setting up of the office of Secretary of State by a Merseyside Member of Parliament, unless my hon. Friend wants to put back the clock and do away with that office. That decision was taken in 1964, and no Welsh Member—not even a Tory Member—wants to put back the clock before 1964. If any hon. Member does, I should like to hear of it.
I am concerned, but not surprised, by the suggestion for increasing the powers—

Sir Raymond Gower: The Secretary of State quoted a comment made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). Does he recall that, at the time when the new office was initiated, the Secretary of State took responsibility only for a narrow range of powers—housing, local govern-

ment and transport? My right hon. Friend was obviously referring to the fact that the previous Minister for Welsh Affairs, although he had no direct departmental supervision, was responsible for the whole range of powers, whereas with the change to the new office, his powers were limited. Does not the Secretary of State feel on reflection that he might have slightly misrepresented the position?

Mr. Morris: I do not think so, when the right hon. Gentleman was relying on that remark as the summary of his argument. If the hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) will do me the favour of reading that speech, he will see that his right hon. Friend was discussing the question of the Vote—there had not been one before—relating to the transformation of the office, limited though the functions might be. My recollection is that the functions were set out by the then Prime Minister in the House in the middle of November, before the debate.
What the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East failed to understand was that there had been a change to a Minister with a separate Vote, which was what began the growth of the Welsh Office under both Governments. Although I concede that there was a mess caused by giving Wales half of education and not the whole, that is another argument. The right hon. Gentleman failed to understand the nature of the change of the office.
I was on the point of dealing with the suggestion to increase the powers of an advisory council. That is a typical Tory approach. Tories have everything to fear from democracy. They love nominated bodies because the power of nomination is the Tories' only hope of keeping their influence in Wales, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) has repeatedly said. Our proposals extend and deepen democracy in Wales. It is the party that has been consistently rejected by the people of Wales that fears our proposals; no one on the Labour Benches should have anything to fear. As the holder of the office of Secretary of State for Wales, I am flattered by those who want to perpetuate it and even to extend it. But what the people of Wales must realise is that to act in that way is to ensure Tory rule in Wales under a Conservative United Kingdom Government if one is


ever elected again, with regard to the functions that could and should be devolved to the control of the majority of the people in Wales. It is this process of democratisation that is the essence of the Tory fear of an elected Assembly. The more people realise that, the better.
I find it odd that Conservative Members who were worthy advocates of a referendum should now, when we have agreed to hold one, want to deprive the people of Wales of the right to express their view on the Government's proposal. Conservative Members have tried to bluster this one out. I watched the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) on television. He said that even if it were deleted from the Bill—I hope that I am not misinterpreting him—Wales could still have a referendum. Who is he kidding? What nonsense was he perpetrating?

Mr. Wyn Roberts: rose—

Mr. Morris: I shall give way in a moment. I do not want to be unfair or to mislead the House. That is the last thing that I want to do.
Who was the hon. Member for Conway trying to kid? He was driven into a corner. He knew he had no defence and he sought to brazen it out.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that we would all be greatly assisted if we had a sight of the clauses that the Government are supposed to be bringing forward that will govern the referendum?

Mr. Morris: Would that affect the hon. Gentleman's vote tonight? The hon. Gentleman knows that he was cornered when he was interview the other night.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Rubbish.

Mr. Morris: The immediate reaction of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards), if he knows that he has a bad case, is to shout "Rubbish". That is his usual incantation. The hon. Member for Conway knows that he was cornered, and the sooner he admits it the better. He should know that the Government intend to hold a referendum on the Bill. We shall bring forward our proposals as soon as possible.

Mr. Abse: rose—

Mr. Morris: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a moment. If there is no Bill affecting Wales, there can be no referendum on the Bill. It is as simple as that.

Mr. Abse: I wonder whether my right hon. and learned Friend would like to tell the Committee how many times, and in how many places, he said adamantly in the Principality that under no circumstances should there be or would there be a referendum? With what brass does he now suggest that he is the great defender of the referendum? It was not until he was defeated in Cabinet, and until the matter was imposed on him largely as a result of the efforts of Labour Members, that he conceded the right of the people of Wales to be able to make their own decision. Does he think that the people of Wales do not see through such humbug—namely, that he of all people should profess to be the defender of the referendum?

Mr. Morris: My hon. Friend should not get steamed up. He is very good at exaggeration. Already this afternoon he has accused me of being Machiavellian. I do not intend to follow him into the gutter by using such words. What I have done repeatedly is to advance to the House of Commons—I have done so at Question Time in reply to my hon. Friend—the difficulties that would arise from a referendum proposal. I said repeatedly in the House that the Government had no proposals for a referendum. My hon. Friend and others have strongly advocated a referendum and we have graciously given way. We said before we published our Bill that we did not intend in any dogmatic fashion to propose a Bill without being willing to hear reasoned argument. We have heard the argument and we have acceded to the proposal. In that case our gracious accession to the proposal should be met in exactly the same way by my hon. Friend.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Dalyell: My right hon. and learned Friend said something a short while ago that was new to me although it may not have been to other hon. Members—namely, that the referendum is to be a referendum on the Bill. Do we deduce from that that the question of the referendum will be along the lines


"Do you accept the Government's devolution Bill?" If that is not to be the question, have the Government any thinking as to precisely what the referendum question is to be?

Mr. Morris: I was using a form of shorthand when dealing with the thoughts and imaginations of the hon. Member for Conway. As for the possibility of a referendum without a provision in the Bill, the form of a referendum or referenda will be put to the House of Commons at the earliest possible moment. I am not able to assist my hon. Friend with detail at this stage.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: How can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say with any degree of conviction, and without the Committee having the referendum clauses before it, that the referendum is affected one way or the other by this amendment?

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait and see.

Mr. Peter Rees: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that the referendum proposals will be put to the House of Commons at the earliest possible moment. Are we to take it from that that an amendment will be tabled this week or next week to enable the Committee to debate what the Government propose, or is it meant that a new clause will be introduced at the end of the proceedings in Committee, which will defer consideration for many weeks? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give us an explicit answer?

Mr. Morris: No decision has yet been taken. This matter has been considered and we shall ensure that an appropriate provision will be brought before the House for consideration. The form of that provision will be considered—namely, whether it shall be an amendment or a new clause. That is a matter that is now being considered, but the provision will be brought before the House of Commons so that it can deal with the matter in good time before the Bill becomes an enactment.

Mr. Kinnock: On the subject of the way in which we conduct our business and whether people are in the gutter, I share my right hon. and learned Friend's view, as I am sure does by hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse),

that the gutter would be a bad place for Members of Parliament, and above all for comrades on the same side of the Chamber, to conduct our business.
It occurs to me that it was not with graciousness or charitable forethought that my right hon. and learned Friend described me last year as one of the referendum boyos. That appeared to me to be a deliberately pejorative description of the belief that I have and will continue to have in the necessity for a referendum on devolution to Wales. The form that it takes will still decide what attitude Labour Members take to the whole referendum issue. I hope that the Government will be approaching the problem with great urgency and clarity of thought. If the question does not reflect a satisfactory examination and a satisfactory measure of the way that people in Wales feel about a referendum, support will be short lived.

Mr. Morris: When the matter is brought before the House of Commons, I am sure that my hon. Friend will want to consider it and to consider his views. I have no doubt that he will wish to consider the stance that he takes when the matter is debated at the appropriate time.

Mr. Nick Budgen: rose—

Mr. Morris: No, I shall not give way. I have given way on a great many occasions.
What I find odd is the difference between the approach of the Tory Party tonight and its approach on Thursday when we were dealing with Scotland. What did the Tory Party spokesman for Scotland have to say for himself? I have furnished myself with a copy of Hansard, and it seems that the hon. Gentleman said:
We made clear from the beginning that we would vote against the Second Reading of the Bill and that from the moment the Second Reading was approved by a majority that we would be constructive in our approach to the Bill.
That was the hon. Gentleman's defence for not voting for the Scottish amendment on Thursday. Why is there a difference in approach tonight? How can the Opposition differentiate between Scotland on the one hand and Wales on the other? How can the spokesman for Scotland put


up a different defence, and how can we have what has been described in strong words—I do not intend to enter into personal abuse—in another way today?
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) said:
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has made clear, the Conservative Opposition"—
we thought that this was great news—
will be approaching the Bill in a constructive way, seeking to improve and amend it. In these circumstances, it would be unfair to suggest that we should remove Scotland entirely from the Bill. That would prevent us from putting forward constructive amendments."—[Official Report, 13th January 1977; Vol. 923, c. 1789, 1791.]
Why is there a difference in the approach tonight? Why should it be unfair to seek to deprive the people of Scotland of the opportunity by an amendment in like terms to the one that we are now debating and yet to adopt a completely different approach today?

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: There seem to be two very good reasons, both of which I have already given. First, the Government have denied us the opportunity to consider the Welsh issue separately. That point has already been made by many of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's hon. Friends. This amendment will give us the opportunity to decide the issue separately on its merits. Secondly, the whole concept of a non-legislative executive Assembly is non-amendable nonsense. It is fundamentally unsound, as I sought to argue. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not sought to deal with the criticisms made of the Bill in the 25 minutes which he has taken so far.

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman may try to brazen this matter out, but the whole country knows that it is utterly illogical to seek to approach the Scottish position in the way that the Opposition did.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Nonsense.

Mr. Morris: Otherwise, they should have advised their colleagues, as they dared not do, to vote with them on Thursday night in the same way as, I understand, they are advising them to vote this evening.
Of course, we must examine the details of the Bill. I have made it clear that

neither I nor any of my colleagues regard ourselves as having a monopoly of wisdom, certainly not on a constitutional matter of this importance. In no sense is the Bill akin to the Tablets of Moses. We will listen to the views of hon. Members and, if the arguments are convincing, agree to amendments with good grace. But that is a wholly different matter, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) said, from cutting out the whole of our provisions for Wales.
The Conservative Party should think again about the ridiculous posture that it has taken in Wales. I shall not weary the House by reading the leading article in today's Liverpool Daily Post, where the whole of this matter is exposed.
The Conservative Opposition have always been against change in Wales—long before their opposition to the Welsh Office. Our generation finds it difficult to imagine the heat engendered by Chuch disestablishment in Wales around the turn of this century and over the next couple of decades. It was much the same as the opposition to the setting up of the Welsh Office.

Mr. Ian Grist: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Morris: No. I was castigated for taking 25 minutes for my speech so far. I do not intend to give way.
Two generations ago, opinion in Wales was deeply divided by the argument on disestablishment, and no one was more vociferous than the then Bishop of St. Asaph. His name happened to be Edwards. I understand that he was a distinguished relative of the hon. Member for Pembroke. What we have heard from the hon. Gentleman today in the House and elsewhere has aroused an aura of the controversy of those years. But we should remember that at the end of the controversy, when an Act of Parliament was passed to disestablish the Church, the same Bishop became the first Archbishop of Wales, and he brought his energy and ability to the service of what he described as
the new province of Wales.
He then took great pride in the achievements of the new order in Wales. He acknowledged its advantages, not the least of which was the new concord and sense


of purpose which had been brought to the life of the Principality. The Archbishop said in his memoirs:
A new and utterly unexpected power had appeared. Disunited Wales may often have been, but now the nation arose and thronging voices of approval came from far and wide.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The Committee is fascinated by this lesson in Welsh history and the exploits of my distinguished relative. However, as the Secretary of State is now coming towards the end of his speech, perhaps he will deal with the specific criticisms which have been made of his measure on the questions of nominated bodies and the whole process of legislation as these matters have not been dealt with by Ministers either in Committee or in any other discussions. Surely the object of the Committee stage is that Ministers should reply to criticisms. The Committee is entitled to expect the Secretary of State to reply to some of the criticisms which have been made of his measure rather than to deal, as he has done, with long-past history.

Mr. Morris: I was seeking to show the consistency of the Tory Party on this measure, on the Welsh Office, and on a previous measure.

Mr. Grist: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Morris: Later. I do not think that the hon. Member for Pembroke was present when I began my speech. I said that I did not propose to follow every hare that he raised but would in due course, when dealing specifically with the nominated bodies, seek to advance, and in the process educate him on, what we propose to do. The hon. Gentleman may have missed the gist of the proposals which were set out in our last supplementary White Paper dealing with the nominated bodies.

Mr. Grist: As the Secretary of State has persisted in the charge that the Conservative Party has always opposed change and that, by implication, the Labour Party has always been in favour of change in Wales, will he tell the Committee what the Labour Government did in that respect between 1945 and 1951? Does he not recognise that a Minister of State for Welsh Affairs, the Welsh Grand Committee and the annual Welsh

Day debate were instituted during the 13 years of Conservative Government which followed? What did the Labour Government do between 1945 and 1951 when they had an overwhelming majority and in their manifesto were pledged to the concept of a Secretary of State for Wales?

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman is wholly wrong about the manifesto. The concept of a Secretary of State for Wales grew over a number of years. The significance of that office, completely misunderstood by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North East, was wholly different and in a completely different ball game from the kind of cosmetic non-elected advisory bodies set up by the Conservative Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton took the most important step of all, in my view, because he ensured that there was a separate Vote for the Secretary of State for Wales. The incumbent of that office was made accountable to the House of Commons. It was from that time that we saw the real growth of administrative decentralisation. We are now seeking to democratise what was begun for the first time in 1964.

Mr. Peter Rees: rose—

Mr. Heffer: Earlier my right hon. and learned Friend referred to the disestablishment of the Church in Wales. Is he aware that many of us believed that that was a great mistake because we felt that there should have been disestablishment of the Church in England as well?

Mr. Peter Rees: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Morris: If I give way any more, I shall be entering into the realm of a Second Reading debate which will have only a bare relevance to these proceedings.

Mr. Peter Rees: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Morris: No, I shall not give way.

Mr. Peter Rees: rose—

Mr. Morris: I am about to turn to another matter.

Mr. Peter Rees: rose—

Mr. Morris: I have given way enough.

Mr. Peter Rees: rose—

Mr. Morris: I am sure that the hon. and learned Member will seek to catch the Chairman's eye later in the debate. If I have misinterpreted the facts, my right hon. Friend will deal with the matter in his winding-up speech.
I shall not enter into personal abuse—

Mr. Abse: Is my right hon. Friend going to indulge in any more talk of the gutter? What right has he to suggest—

The Chairman: Order.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Morris: I shall not pursue what my hon. Friend the Member for Ponty-pool (Mr. Abse) said. I have read each of his comments in these debates and I shall not pursue him in the words and abuse which he has hurled at me. I have deliberately kept clear of that. Each hon. Member is responsible for his own words in the House of Commons, and my hon. Friend may well regret what he has said about me in the past.
I shall not today remind the Committee unduly of the taunts of hon. Members of the nationalist party that we were filibustering in preparing the Bill. They must acknowledge that the sheer evidence of the detail of the Bill and its workmanlike nature are proof of the hard work done. Our proposals were brought to the House at the earliest possible opportunity.
Of course, some people like the nationalists want to go further—and I am glad that they acknowledge that—because they are primarily separatists. But the opening words of the Bill make it clear that we stand for the unity of the United Kingdom. We reject separatism, we reject the whole posture of separate statehood—separate armies, separate navies, separate air forces, a separate economy—which are implicit in the views of the nationalist party. And so does Wales. But in asking the Committee to reject the amendments, I am happy to kill off any suggestion that our proposals were not welcomed in Wales and that they were not properly put to the people of Wales at the last election.
I remind the Committee that this specific issue has been discussed by the Labour

Party in Wales as far back as 1965, that we set up the Royal Commission on the Constitution, and that we gave our evidence to the Commission. The party opposite ignored the Commission. We have never had a word of explanation as to why it did so. The Commission came to Cardiff, but there was still no sign of the hon. Gentlemen or their predecessors. No wonder the people of Wales are forced to conclude that they are mere opportunists and that they care not one whit for Wales.
We made our views quite clear in the two manifestos of 1974. We consulted all the major bodies, including in particular the political parties. We were fortified by the fact that the majority favoured something along the lines of what we proposed. Against us were the Tory Party, the CBI, the NFU, the CLA—and the National Bus Company.
I want to draw the attention of the House to a letter which was recently sent to hon. Members by the Welsh Counties Committee. It is dated 14th January and reads:
I am instructed by the Chairman of the Welsh Counties Committee … to say that the Welsh Counties Committee … is appalled that the Association of County Councils".
I recall the Leader of the Opposition relying on previous communications from the Association of County Councils in one of our other debates on devolution. The letter states that the committee is appalled that the association
should write to Members of Parliament in Wales to support amendments to the Devolution Bill which will take Wales out of the Bill.
I shall not read the whole of the letter, but another part states:
The resolution of the Committee is to ask for a referendum and the Chairman and Vice-Chairman are appalled that the Association of County Councils, being mainly English Counties, should have taken the unprecedented step of supporting a resolution to take Wales out of the Devolution Bill without even the courtesy of consultation with the Welsh Counties Committee. I hope that you will make this situation plain in the House of Commons and that the Welsh Counties Committee disassociates itself from the steps taken by the Association of County Councils.
We published our first White Paper in September 1974. There was no question of this being in the small print of our manifesto. Our conclusions, with


all the attendant publicity, were spelt out. We went into the election. I dealt with the issue when in the company of my hon. Friends I did a party political broadcast. The whole of Wales knows our commitment, and I am confident that when the people are given the opportunity—which Opposition hon. Members seek to deny them—they will endorse our proposals.
From 1852 to today is a long time to be a minority party in any country. That is the history of the Tory Party in Wales. Since 1852 it has spoken for the minority, because Wales does not forget its past. That is why the Tory Party is fighting tonight to avoid majority rule. It will continue to be the voice of the minority because Wales will neither forget the past nor forgive the present.
Wales knows that the clock cannot be put back. Defeat tonight will not end the argument but will prolong it. It will be a running sore in Wales, because I am convinced that Wales does want more democratic control over institutions in the Principality. I advise the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. Hooson: When the Secretary of State suggested that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) should emulate his distinguished great uncle and as a result of the Bill become the Chief Executive in a Welsh State, he was using the most effective argument possible against the Bill.
The Bill has many deficiencies, but it is the only Bill that we have. The Committee has to consider whether it will go along with what is virtually a wrecking amendment, because the effect of the amendment is to deny the Welsh people, even those who have serious misgivings about the Bill or who might be against it in a referendum, any debate in depth on the merit of the Bill. That is the unacceptable procedure that has been adopted by the Conservative Opposition.
I have made clear that I believe that there should have been a separate Bill for Wales and that the decision to have a joint Bill was a tactical one. In retrospect, it may prove to be a major tactical error. However, the Government took a decision and this is the only Bill that we have.
If Scotland had been dealt with first, Wales, through a separate Bill, would have been more likely to have meaningful and effective devolution. It would have been possible to benefit from the debate on the Scottish issue. The views of the House could have been more crystallised because Scotland is already at a more advanced stage of devolution.
We are debating an amendment which is designed simply to wreck the Welsh part of the Bill completely and to ensure that there is no debate on Wales hereafter. For example, one of the most interesting matters in the Bill is contained in Clauses 22 and 23. Clause 22 makes the Welsh Assembly an executive body for Wales. It confers executive functions upon the Welsh Assembly. However, Clause 23 confers upon that Assembly the rôle of a subordinate legislature, and here there is a direct clash of principle. The old idea that democracy depends in the end upon a separation of powers and upon the control of the Executive by the legislature is directly in conflict with the joint provisions of Clauses 22 and 23. The debates we shall have on those clauses will be extremely serious.
Let us consider, however, what would be the effect of accepting the amendment. First, it would deprive us completely of the opportunity of debating this vital matter. It seems to me that it is time that the debate was elevated above the squalid party squabble that always develops between the Conservative Front Bench and the Government in its attacks. I absolutely disagree with the hon. Member for Pembroke. I could understand him voting against Third Reading, as he voted against Second Reading, in deciding that the Bill should not become law. However, the attitude adopted towards this issue by his party's spokesman on Scottish affairs is much more commendable than the attitude he has adopted.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that we had been engaged in squalid party attacks. It he had listened more carefully to my speech, he would have conceded that I made no squalid attacks but that I dealt in detail with the reasons why I thought the proposals were bad. It was the Secretary of State who indulged for about 35 minutes in a squalid party attack and made not the slightest attempt to review


the criticisms which had been put forward.

Mr. Hooson: The hon. Member for Pembroke repeated this evening his good Second Reading speech. I agree that there are points to attack in the Bill. I have serious misgivings about parts of it, and I, unlike the hon. Member for Pembroke, am a convinced devolutionist. The amendment is designed to take Wales out of the Bill. In other words, the vote on it will be the same vote as took place on Second Reading.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of his constituency interests. Since he represents a constituency containing fairly substantial forests, he should be aware that among the many misgivings about the Bill is one that the Forestry Commission will be broken up. I am not trying to score a party point, and I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman's point of view. However, since he represents a substantial sector of the Welsh forests, he should say how he feels about the effect of the Bill on those forests.

Mr. Hooson: I am glad to say that I do not represent forests. I represent people. In that respect I am distinguished from the hon. Gentleman. I believe that the right time to deal with such specialised interests is when we come to the clauses dealing with forestry and the powers of the Commission. These are very important interests, not only in my part of the world but in Scotland as well.
However, since the Bill is the only means of extensive debate that we shall have on devolution, and since we have got this far, for heaven's sake do not let us lose the opportunity of dealing with the Bill in depth. Many important principles have to be dealt with, whether we approve of the Bill as it is, whether it is approved in some much more amended form or whether it is defeated and is eventually replaced by another Bill. There are very important matters which the House has hardly touched upon as yet. Therefore, the tactics of the Opposition in this regard are mistaken.

Sir Raymond Gower: The hon. and learned Gentleman compared the attitude of my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) with the attitude

towards devolution of our colleagues in Scotland. Is he not aware that, whereas our Scottish colleagues commended to their electorates in two or three successive General Elections a separate Assembly for Scotland, those who contested the Welsh constituencies for the Conservative Party did not do so?

Mr. Hooson: I understand that point of view. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that on Second Reading and Third Reading he and his colleagues will vote against the Bill, I can understand that. That is a perfectly consistent viewpoint. Where I am really at issue with the Opposition, however, is that to adopt the tactics they have adopted at this stage is to say to the people of Wales not only that they are not to have the Bill but that they are not even to have a discussion in depth on it in the House of Commons. Like the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, I believed that there should be a separate Bill for Wales. The difference is that they want a separate Bill so that they can defeat it; I want a separate Bill because of the greater benefits which would flow from it.
This issue of devolution is of vital importance and this is the first opportunity that the House of Commons has had of going into the matter in depth, as opposed simply simply to exchanging general views across the Floor of the House. Therefore, it would be criminal to exclude Wales from the Bill at present. I shall certainly be supporting the Government tonight against this particular, amendment.

6.15 p.m.

Sir Raymond Gower: Some of the speeches that have been made this evening have seemed to indicate that those who hold certain opinions treat the opinions of others with a degree of contempt and refuse to admit that any sincerity is expressed apart from that expressed in their own contributions. I implore those who have already spoken, including the Minister, to heed my experience both in the House and outside it—I cannot speak for the whole of Wales—which shows that, apart from those who strongly favour separatism, this issue is causing deeper concern to many people in Wales than any other issue in recent years.
I know that the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) spoke in rather light-hearted terms about the slippery slope, but I can assure the Minister that there are many people in Wales who fear that the Bill could be the beginning of that slippery slope. It is not that they do not want any kind of devolution or any kind of representative institution to give voice to the peculiar differences which exist within the Principality. Their fear is that there is within the Bill the possible beginning of a movement to separate Wales from the rest of the United Kingdom, particularly England.
I saw a lot of force in the intervention by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), who pointed out that there are many people in parts of Merseyside and North Wales whose interests, jobs and prosperity are almost inextricably interwoven. There are great differences within Wales, of course. Wales consists of three or four different kinds of people. There are those who are strongly Welsh-speaking. Then there are those who speak a modicum of Welsh but who are chiefly English-speaking. Thirdly, there are those who have no Welsh at all. Some of them are of Welsh parentage, but some are not. Finally, there are those who have arrived among us fairly recently, and those whose families have been established in Wales for 100 years or more but who are still not Welsh-speaking. The interests of these different peoples are diverse, and so are their anxieties.
If there are those in any part of the Committee who regard this issue in a light-hearted manner and who believe that devolution should go through like a relentless steamroller because there is nothing to fear from it, I can assure them that many people who have spoken to me about the issue do not share their view.
The right hon. Member for Anglesey—and, I think, the Secretary of State—asked why we took different attitudes to the Bill at different stages. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that possibly a majority of those who voted for me want the Bill defeated at any stage and by any method.

Mr. Hooson: indicated dissent.

Sir R. Gower: The hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head. I respect his

views, but what I say is the case. I have had the benefit of representing my constituency for 25 years and I know something of my constituents' wishes and views.

Mr. Hooson: I think that on reflection the hon. Gentleman will agree that it would be far better for his constituents and the country, if the Bill is to be defeated, that it is defeated after adequate debate.

Sir R. Gower: Yes, but on the other hand they would feel that we as individuals would be doing less than our duty if we did not examine the Bill in detail at every stage and contest it fiercely. That is what they want me to do. They are very anxious about what they regard as frightening legislation. In their view, it could tear families apart. They may be misguided and completely exaggerating the danger, but one has to accept people as they are, not as they should be.
I hope that most of these fears are unwise, exaggerated or unfounded, but the fact remains that many people feel that the British Isles and the British people say something important and have given something of value to a large part of the world and that if we destroyed their unity it would be to our ultimate regret. I hope that this will also be the view of those who in Scotland also seem determined to tear the United Kingdom asunder.

Mr. Wigley: The hon. Gentleman paints a picture of many of his constituents being under grave misapprehensions about the consequences of the Bill. His hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) has called for a referendum without discussion in Committee. Does not the hon. Gentleman feel that a referendum would come better after a discussion in Committee, when his constituents would have a better understanding of the Bill?

Sir R. Gower: No, I certainly do not. I do not like the idea of a referendum limited to the terms of the Bill, as this one will be. I should like a much wider referendum so that people could answer separate questions on a number of issues. That does not seem possible within the restrictions imposed by the Bill, so I should prefer a separate referendum.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that it might also be difficult to have the same questions in referenda for Wales and Scotland? For example, so far as I am concerned, no referendum question would be complete in a Scottish context unless there were a fairly explanatory reference to the oil revenues from the North Sea.

Sir R. Gower: That is a separate issue on which I am not qualified to speak in a Scottish context. But the terms of a referendum on something which arouses such great differences within parties as well as among people living in different parts of the United Kingdom are obviously difficult to frame.
In reply to the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley), I would on the whole prefer a referendum which went beyond the terms of the Bill and permitted a wider question or perhaps two or three questions. The question which, within the terms of the Bill, seems likely is "Do you approve or not of what the Government propose?" That is too limited.
I can imagine that many people would approve of a different form of devolution. I should. I do not like devolution which sets such paramount importance by Scotland and Wales and gives hardly any attention to England. I do not like the title of the Bill. It is completely wrong. If we want devolution, it should be the "United Kingdom Devolution Bill". That is why I have put down an amendment—

Mr. Tom Ellis: While he is talking about the particular form of the question, does not the hon. Gentleman think that it would be a good thing to have two questions—first, whether people want to accept the measure as passed in Parliament and, second, whether they want separatism? That would satisfy the very human desire to be able to vote "Yes" and "No" on the same ballot paper.

Sir R. Gower: That would be an improvement certainly on a single question. But I had left that issue.
I should prefer the title to be "United Kingdom Devolution Bill". Then, all our attention would not be focused on the differences between Wales and Scotland on the one hand and the rest of the Kingdom on the other. How much better it

would have been had there been proposals at the same time to set up assemblies in a province perhaps to be called Northumbria or in the South-West of England. Then we should have had the basis of something which would not appear to break up the United Kingdom or advance a separate treatment for Wales and Scotland.

Mr. Hooson: Federalism.

Sir R. Gower: I am not frightened by federalism. I would far prefer a federal system to the present Bill, which is open-ended. With this system, if things became difficult or turned sour, those on the Assemblies would be only human if they said either that they had not enough power or that they had not enough money. In both cases the responsibility would rest here at Westminster.

Mr. Tom Ellis: On a point of order. Is the hon. Gentleman in order in arguing as he is? He seems to be arguing not about the amendment but about the case for having devolution to Scotland and Wales or for not having it.

Sir R. Gower: What I am saying is directly related to the amendment. I said that I could much more easily support a measure extending this system to parts of England as well. The real difficulty I face is that by limiting the provisions of the Bill to Scotland and Wales we are establishing the idea that these are very different parts of the United Kingdom which can go their separate ways.

Mr. Wigley: So they are.

Sir R. Gower: They are in some degree, with their separate cultures and so on, but they are not totally different in all parts. There are more similarities than differences. There are more good qualities shared by people in all the different parts of the United Kingdom than there are differences which need separate attention.
Somewhat reluctantly, at the end of the day—whatever the Secretary of State may say—the Government have said that we shall have a referendum. But we are given no details of the proposal which the Government will add to the Bill. Because they have made this general promise of a referendum, they suggest that everyone with doubts and anxieties about the inclusion of Wales should


immediately abandon all examination or opposiion and vote for the Bill enthusiastically.
That would make nonsense of what my hon. Friends and I have said in election addresses at the last three General Elections, on public platforms and in all previous public statements on this subject. The Secretary of State implies that only he and his colleagues have any interest at all in the future welfare of the Principality.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. John Morris: indicated dissent.

Sir R. Gower: The right hon. and learned Gentleman implied it. He said that the Conservatives had never had any such interest. He implied that all the useful things that had been done were done by him and his predecessors. He neglected to remind the Committee that the first Minister for Welsh Affairs was appointed by Sir Winston Churchill in 1951. He also forgot to remind the Committee that later a Minister of State was added by a Conservative Government, and he conveniently also forgot to add that after the institution of the Welsh Office it was a Conservative Government who added education to the functions of the Welsh Office. All these were quite important advances in the evolutionary process.

Mr. John Morris: The hon. Gentleman might conveniently read Sir John Colville's account of the time when he was private secretary to Sir Winston Churchill and how the then Government sought to appoint the first junior Minister with some responsibility for Wales, a matter in which I understand the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) was also involved. When it was discovered that there were too many Parliamentary Secretaries, the Tory method of appointing a junior Minister was to send for "Burke's Peerage". The Tories started at the letter "A" and eventually found someone whose name began with the letter "L".

Mr. Geraint Howells: It was "L1 ".

Mr. John Morris: That is right. That man, whose name began with "L1", was sent for. He happened to be caring for his pigs at the time. There has not been

for many a year any instance of an elected Tory Member for Wales being allowed to have a hand in any ministerial office.

Sir R. Gower: While I might derive great advantage from reading John Colville, I prefer to examine the statements of John Morris. I am referring to the Secretary of State's statement, not to anyone else's.

Sir David Renton: In order that the argument on this matter may be ended, it may help my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower), the Secretary of State and anyone else who may be interested, to refer to paragraph 134 of the Kilbrandon Report, which states the matter in a purely factual way and supports the case that was being put forward by my hon. Friend.

Sir R. Gower: The Secretary of State is entitled to minimise what we tried to do and to maximise what he sought to do, but people in many parties supported those advances and continue to support them. It is very different to take a far-reaching step which will for the first time separate the administration, the Executive's decisions, from responsibility to the House of Commons. That is vital. It is moving the whole field of Executive decisions from the direct responsibility of the House of Commons at Westminster. I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that that is an enormous step.
The Secretary of State should not deprecate the very real and, I believe, reasonable anxieties of those who want to step back, who hesitate to support such a step. This is a major change. We are not sure, but we have a good deal of evidence that many people in Wales have great apprehensions and fears about it and great anxieties for the future. I hope that those fears are unfounded, but we are expressing views of many, possibly of the great majority of the Welsh people. The Minister should not imagine that because he can count more supporters on these Benches many of his own supporters in Wales do not share the views and the fears which we are expressing. It is not limited to one party. Members of every party share these anxieties. Someone has to express these views in the House of Commons


tonight, since they are very important ones, just as important as any others which have been put forward.

Mr. Kinnock: A great deal of attention has been given in this debate to the matter of holding consistent opinions. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has accused the Conservatives of inconsistency, in that they sought a referendum and now seek to destroy the Bill, which would provide for a referendum. On the other hand, we see the extraordinary spectacle of colleagues who have for many months consistently and loudly attacked those of us who sought a referendum now espousing the referendum cause with an energy and enthusiasm which we could not have guessed at over the last few months.
I speak possibly as a member of a minority within a minority on this question. Although profoundly opposed to the Bill and all its works, I shall nevertheless vote against the Conservative amendment, which seeks to delete Wales from the Bill. The reason is obvious, and can be put very briefly. I think that everyone will appreciate the necessity of my action.
If we throw out Wales tonight, we throw out the referendum baby with the bath water. Devolution, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said, will continue to be a running sore in Wales. It will suppurate all over the Labour movement in Wales and will continue to divide and distract the people of Wales from the main matters of concern to them, economic affairs and social deprivation. For years to come the constitutionalists, the aspirants to national office in Wales and those with a vested interest in devolution will continue to prate about the need for devolution, even though there is not a single major deficiency in Welsh life or a single major problem in the Welsh economy that will be touched by devolution or any of the proposals in the Bill. Not a single interest of people anywhere in Wales—whether it be democratic, cultural or political—will be advanced one inch by devolution in Wales. That is my reason for opposing the Bill.
Be without the opportunity for a referendum, those who try to draw a

connection between the establishment of a mini-Parliament in Cardiff and the resolution of the chronic economic and social anguish of Wales will continue to market this lunacy, that by having constitutional change we can meet the political and economic crisis. Whenever there has been a real challenge, a real need for profound economic change and a clear political lead, those who are incapable of meeting the major pressures of politics have meandered into the constitutional archives. Their nostrum has been to come up with marvellous plans, models and re-arrangements as a means of diverting attention and dodging the main issues. That is the nonsense of the idea that we could somehow advance the cause of Wales through an independent Wales. We no more advance its cause through a devolved Wales than by supporting or embracing the separatism of the nationalists.

Mr. Anderson: Does not my hon. Friend agree that this is the last kick of the romantic nineteenth century view that one can basically alter a situation by tinkering with constitutions? That ignores the twentieth century view of economic change being paramount.

Mr. Kinnock: The twentieth century view was given by Aneurin Bevan on the last page of his book "In Place of Fear". He said that an old teacher had once told him "The clothes are there because the man is there, but nations must exist as economic units before they exist as constitutional units." Aneurin Bevan said that failure to recognise that was the mistake that many of the leaders of the new nations might be making then, back in 1952. It may be one of the mistakes that would-be leaders of newly-established States, mini-States, quasi-States or "devo"-States are making now.
The people of Wales are not impressed by those propositions. The only way to bury that delusion once and for all in Wales, and to get on with the major problems of extending democracy meaningfully and winning our way out of chronic depression as well as of rural and urban depression, is by ensuring that our minds and energies are no longer preoccupied with the false idea that we can find a constitutional balm for our difficulties.

Mr. Tom Ellis: My hon. Friend quoted Aneurin Bevan in talking of the existence of nations. No doubt my hon. Friend will agree that, if in 1864 Bismarck had annexed the whole of Denmark rather than only a small part of it, Denmark now would have been part of Germany, Copenhagen would be a provincial town, and the position of Denmark would be very different.

Mr. Kinnock: My preoccupation is with Wales rather than with Denmark, and with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House rather than with Bismarck. I should be the last person to see any connection between their activities. Those who seek to use the analogies of events in the period 1865 to 1875 in German history and to superimpose them as a criterion in judging the Bill are avoiding the realities of the situation. The people of Wales want to be guided not by analogy but by reality.

Mr. Dalyell: I understand my hon. Friend's argument, but does he not accept that there may be some discretion in terms of the attitude over practicalities? If my hon. Friend votes on key issues in favour of the Government and on Third Reading, what will prevent my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House from going to Sophia Gardens in Cardiff and, with all his eloquence, saying "Parliament has passed this Bill. You must accept the package produced by Parliament"? That is how the Second Reading of the Bill went. Such is the enthusiasm for devolution, that it is being put about that the majority of the House of Commons, including my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), accepts the arguments on devolution.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is it not clear also that the Leader of the House will say when he goes to Cardiff "The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) is in favour of putting Wales into the Bill. Therefore, you should vote 'Yes' in the referendum"?

Mr. Kinnock: Perhaps I may correct an impression that may have been gathered by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). I do not intend to give support, unreserved or otherwise, on most of this Bill to my right hon. Friends in the Government. I have taken every opportunity to make that

absolutely clear. It is a matter of mere expediency—honest expediency—that I am supporting the Government tonight, and my hon. Friends are aware of that, for the simple reason that I want to give the people of Wales a chance to kill the Bill so that it will not go on exhausting us for years to come. That is the basis on which I support the Government.
I am aware of the clear possibility of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House—and I am even more aware that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales may do so—going to Sophia Gardens and drawing attention to the majority which the Government have had at various stages in the Bill's passage and seeking to get the people of Wales somehow to legitimise the whole process. If the people of Wales vote against devolution, there is a building in Cardiff worth £2·8 million, all dressed up with nowhere to go. Against that background, it will be suggested to the people of Wales that it will be better if they vote for devolution. That view, and also the view expressed by the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer), does not give full credit to the Welsh people. The Welsh people in the majority are profoundly opposed to these proposals.
As we work our way through this Bill in Committee, we shall more and more adequately demonstrate that many claims made for devolution are false and that it is an expensive process. Furthermore we shall have the opportunity in the referendum campaign to express a view. The people of Wales, whatever their opinions on devolution, will readily acknowledge that, without the campaign of the anti-devolutionists, the people of Wales would not have had a voice on this issue, and a certain amount of credit will be given to us on that score.
6.45 p.m.
I understand what the Government are doing. They are attempting, by a mixture of parliamentary boredom and public resignation, to present people with a referendum and with a devolution deal that is more or less signed, sealed and nicely packaged. It is unlikely that such a ploy will succeed, and consequently the people of Wales will reject devolution—and they will reject it by such a majority that we can then get on to deal with the other


subjects. If the question is drawn up in a proper manner, I hope that the people of Wales will not only reject devolution but will take the opportunity to give an accurate measurement of the demand for independence in Wales.
I realise that among the enthusiasts for a referendum, so we are told, are members of Plaid Cymru. It would be difficult for them to be anything else. I recognise that one of the most substantial criticisms of the referendum is that it is a populist ploy. After all, Plaid Cymru is a populist party. It would be impossible for its members to show such a lack of self-confidence in the essence of their party's existence by saying "We do not want a referendum on independence", because that would be the most obvious confession that they know that there is only the tiniest minority of the Welsh people who share their fanatical belief in independence for Wales.
Many people will examine the subject of the referendum and devolution, look at who supports each side, and say "The nationalists have warmly welcomed devolution and acknowledged that they consider it to be the gateway to independence". There is every prospect that when we come to a full and clear assessment by the Welsh people of what is meant by devolution and for what purposes it is being supported, we shall experience an outcome which many hon. Members on these Benches, and also many people in Wales, have long demanded.
That is good news for me, and it is appropriate in this context to give the reasons for keeping Wales in the Bill. It is incumbent on the Government in rejecting the amendment to say what would be the advantages to Wales. I should like to refer briefly to the now infamous petition or declaration, as I suppose it should be called, in the Western Mail of Thursday 13th January.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I have listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman's speech, but he has not clarified his position or told us whether he is in favour of devolving any power at all to the Welsh people.

Mr. Kinnock: I will go into that in the closest possible detail immediately.

If the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) will tell me later precisely what he means by devolution—a subject that probably holds the world record for sheer turgidity and the fact that it can mean anything to anybody—I shall give him the full reward of being as explicit as possible about the kind of devolution or democratic advance or expansion that I should like to see. But I shall try to answer him now by making reference to the advertisement that appeared in the Western Mail.
I am told that there were about 800 signatures on the advertisement. I have not counted them, but it has come to my notice that fewer people signed it than were reported to have done so. Perhaps over the next few days more people will indicate that they were not asked to sign and that they have not donated any money to pay for the advertisement. Consequently, there is something of a misrepresentation in this rather grandiose declaration. The advertisement says:
We, the undersigned, believe that an unanswerable case exists for a real extension of democracy and responsibility to the people of Wales within Britain.
If there is anyone in Parliament who disagrees with that, I should be truly amazed. We are all in favour of an extension of democracy and responsibility to the people of Wales within Britain, just as we are all in favour of motherhood. sunshine love and—as my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) who is under the American influence, suggests—apple pie. But I do not know what that all has to do with the proposals of the Bill. The idea that the Bill extends democracy—when in fact we are having just a multiplication of the deficiencies of the House of Commons without significant changes in the rights and responsibilities of people anywhere in Britain, including Scotland and Wales—defeats me.
The advertisement continues:
Present arrangements for the accountability of the existing governmental administration in Wales is wholly unsatisfactory.
And so say all of us, too. Present arrangements for accountability of existing governmental administration everywhere in Britain, in all departments, are unsatisfactory. Of course, nobody has defined the meaning of "unsatisfactory", but any hon. Member who has sat in the


House of Commons for longer than a week will understand that our arrangements, both in the House of Commons and at other levels, leave much to be desired. I do not know what all this has to do with the Bill. I do not know how the Bill would expand the scrutinising powers of elected representatives of the people. The advertisement says:
As Parliament grapples with the increasing volume and complexity of European legislation, it is unrealistic to expect it to devote more time to Welsh affairs.
Parliament has never devoted a great deal of time to Welsh affairs. One may hold British membership of the Common Market culpable for many crimes against the British people, but less time for Welsh affairs in the House of Commons is not one of them. The shortage of time results from the way that we approach the whole question of European legislation, as well as many other matters of interest to the House of Commons. It is not the Common Market that has spoiled things for Wales, or Wales that has spoiled things for the Common Market, but the inadequate outdated procedures of the House.
The declaration also says:
Welsh economic and social problems, as well as the problem of accountability, cannot be met through any reform of procedures of one central Parliament.
I think I said that first, so I can only agree. The advertisement adds
That the situation in Wales, therefore"—
and I ask everybody to note that "therefore"—
demands the establishment of a directly elected Welsh Assembly, answerable to the people of Wales.
This assertion and conclusion directly follows the suggestion that the Welsh economic and social problems cannot be met through reform of the House of Commons. We are led to believe that it can be met by the creation of a directly-elected Welsh assembly. This is the central misrepresentation of the whole devolution case—the idea that more houses can be built, more jobs found, more happiness manufactured, more security and more unitl exist, if only we have an Assembly. Once that central idea of devolution is shot through by practical examination, the whole case crumples. Unless the changes proposed by the Government can deliver more

resources to the people of Wales—and I mean more, not just better, because they are our first demand as an impoverished country—the proposition that our condition in Wales can be substantially improved, let alone transformed as some devolutionists would have us think, is totally rejected.
There is another matter that I had not intended to raise, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) and the Secretary of State have both referred to it, perhaps we should give it some attention at this early stage. The advertisement says:
The need for a directly elected Welsh Assembly, and the expectation that has been built up over the last ten years, has reached a point where any frustration of the aspiration would dangerously threaten social harmony in Wales and relationships in Britain as a whole.
I was once involved in a building strike—in fact, I have been involved in more than one building strike—that took place at a school. The employers' representative had been particularly unforthcoming in his reactions to our request for a little more recompense for our labours. In fact, he had been very cheeky about the whole matter and had disregarded democratic procedures. I remember a shop steward standing in front of the school, which had great plate glass windows, addressing the assembled building workers, and saying "We do not want any violence in this dispute, so I want you to ignore completely that pile of bricks behind you."
I am sorry that, in the name of expanding democracy, people have given legitimacy, succour and significance to lunatics in Wales—and there is a tiny minority which seeks the violent road to what is called "freedom" for Wales—that they have never had from responsible politicians of any party in Wales or from the Welsh people.
The idea is being spread that, if one does not vote "Yes" in the referendum, one will dangerously threaten social harmony in Wales and relationships to Britain as a whole. My right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey is not given to exaggeration, but he talked about repercussions. I hope that all hon. Members on this side of the Committee will, during debates on the remainder of the Bill, strike the alphabet of fear out of


their vocabulary. I hope that no hon. Member will seek to use fear as a means of trying to get a democratic result. Fear and democracy cannot travel together, and fear cannot produce democracy. Those who, in the name of democracy, use the threat that others may disrupt, disharmonise and destroy, are doing themselves an immense disservice and ruining the core of their argument.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I agree with my hon. Friend, but I hope that he will include in the categories of fear that there should be no fear of the Welsh language.

Mr. Kinnock: I completely accept what my right hon. Friend says, although it might be as well if everyone chose to offset the way in which, in order to be Welsh today, one is required to support devolution, embrace the idea of a devolved system for Wales, and give a basis to the superiority of the Welsh language. [An HON. MEMBER: "The hon. Gentleman is at it again."] No one can say that I am at it again. I might just be the last friend that the Welsh language has got.
I have the closest family associations with people whose first language is Welsh. They include my wife, her whole family and my mother's family in South Wales. As I have demonstrated many times in the House of Commons and elsewhere, I wish to see the Welsh language prosper. I do not follow that wish by saying, as do so many politicians, "but". I say that therefore the best way of securing the vital support that the Welsh language needs in the media and out of public finances is to see that it wins friends among the non-Welsh speaking population of Wales.
There are many who spout the cause of the Welsh language, but who, in their belligerence, do nothing to win friends for the language. I would never use fear of the Welsh language. I do not believe that the Welsh people, the majority of whom speak only English, would ever accept the usurpation of the system by people who speak only Welsh.
However, in islands in Wales there is the exercise of linguistic supremacy and it causes enormous resentment towards the

language. Those who are the true friends of the language will draw attention to this fact calmly ad tolerantly and will seek to work against it so that the language may flourish in an atmosphere of peace.
I would bet my last penny that, if we ever get an Assembly it will be considerably less generous in the financial provision for the Welsh language than the House of Commons is prepared to be. By the very nature of a devolved Assembly, all its financial margins will be extremely narrow and every penny will have to be searched for. Such an Assembly would not be able to spend, for instance, £10 million on bilingual road signs. That would be an outrageous misuse of limited funds. The only reason that it has been possible is the deficiency in our systems of scrutiny in this Parliament. However, if that is the means of sponsoring, supporting and fostering the Welsh language, those resource will not become available in the much more straitened financial circumstances of the Welsh Assembly.
I hope that all these matters will be considered in Committee. I repeat that if we take Wales out of the Bill, it will remain alive and twitching; if we defeat it in a referendum, we shall kill it and long may it lie dead.

Mr. Powell: United as I am with the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) in my strong opposition to most of the contents and principles of the Bill, I feel that he dangerously exaggerates the virtues of a referendum in bringing any subject to a decisive and permanent conclusion.
It may be that those who think as I do on the subject of Britain and the European Economic Community have a vested interest in that view; but it can hardly be said that the experience of 1975 is encouraging to the argument which the hon. Member for Bedwellty puts forward. It would, therefore, be dangerous for those of us who wish, like him, to see this will-o'-the-wisp laid and to see these illusions removed from the political scene, to leave Wales in the Bill and even hope that the Bill will complete all its stages, just to risk all, win or lose, on the outcome of a referendum which might well settle nothing for the future.
Some of the few who have shown themselves to be opposed to the amendment have described it as a wrecking or cynical amendment or as a mere contrivance of those who are opposed to the Bill. I cannot agree. Some right hon. and hon. Members, from the very first proposition in the first White Paper, have declared that Wales should be dealt with separately from Scotland and have sustained that view at every stage so far, including Second Reading. Surely, if they now move an amendment in accordance with what they have consistently said from the beginning, it is unreasonable to treat it as the sort of amendment which ought not to be put forward. Why, it would have been impossible for the Opposition, after all they have said on this subject, not to have put forward this amendment.
The reason why my colleagues and I will support it is that the Bill, in attempting to legislate simultaneously for Wales and Scotland, is thereby inherently a bad Bill, for it is impossible to debate the matters which arise out of the Bill in one and the same measure covering Wales and Scotland. The circumstances, the conclusions to be drawn from those circumstances, and the proposals in the Bill are radically different as they apply to Wales and to Scotland. Unless we separate them, every debate will be confused and infructuous.
For example one need go no further than the very clause to which this amendment is moved. Clause 1 says that the proposals
do not affect the unity of the United Kingdom".
Yet the effect of the Bill on
the unity of the United Kingdom
must, on anyone's view, be extremely different according as the provisions affect Scotland or Wales. We shall find it impossible to debate the proposition in Clause I in its application at the same time to Scotland and to Wales.
Even the reasons urged in favour of the Bill are quite different for the two parts of the United Kingdom. My authority for saying that is none other than the Prime Minister's. In moving the Second Reading, he stated unequivocally that he regarded the inhabitants of Wales and Scotland as constituting nations and went on to say that the Bill was adjusted

to meet the real aspirations".—[Official Report, 13th December 1976; Vol. 922, c. 992.]
of those respective nations. So he regarded the nationhood of Wales, in contrast to the nationhood of Scotland, as justifying widely different treatment in the Bill, the nationhood of Scotland as calling for a legislative Parliament, the nationhood of Wales as calling only for an Assembly restricted to certain powers of secondary legislation.
I am not saying that I agree. I regard the proposition as absurd. But the framers of the Bill have built into it the principle that, so different are the circumstances of Wales and Scotland, so different is the nationhood of each which they purport to recognise, nearly all the provisions are different for the one part and the other. I say that it is an absurdity, and always has been an absurdity that the House should be asked to debate in Committee, and to pass through all its stages, a Bill which combines, centaur-like, two incompatible animals.
It is no good the Government saying "You are wrecking the Bill, because you move this amendment knowing that if it were carried, and if we had to start again with a separate Bill for Wales, we could not get the Welsh Bill, and maybe could not get even this Bill, through both Houses in this Session." That does not lie in the mouth of the Government. They are the people who control parliametary time. Being a party of planners, presumably they plan their legislation not in terms of a single Session but in terms of a Parliament. They cannot come to us when we say "You have combined incompatibles that ought not to be placed before the House together in a single Bill" and complain that that would land them in difficulties with their timetable.
I have mentioned that, after due consideration, my hon. Friends and I believe that the contention is thoroughly right—parliamentarily right and legislatively right—that Wales should not be dealt with in the same Bill as Scotland and should not be debated on it. But people will say "Is this not strange when the hon Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), in a speech on Second Reading which was widely commented on in the remaining course of the debate as well as outside the House subsequently,


drew attention to the fact that democratic administrative devolution does not raise many of the problems, arguably insoluble, which are raised by legislative devolution? Is it not strange that you wish to remove from the Bill provisions in respect of another part of the United Kingdom, namely, Wales, for administrative devolution?"
I make a confession. If this Bill contained provisions for restoring to Northern Ireland even ordinary democratic local government as it is enjoyed in the rest of the United Kingdom, and conferring on it representation in this House, even on the reduced scale of England, speaking for myself I would be sorely tempted, like Lord Chief Justice Crewe, to "labour to make a covenant with myself" and, whatever I felt about the rest of the Bill, to say that at any rate it was going to bring minimal justice to the Province where I represent a constituency, and therefore I would swallow my doubts about everything else in the Bill and vote for it on that account. But, of course, we are not being given in this Bill, those of us who come from Northern Ireland, which is in most need of genuine democracy, of democratic control of its affairs, anything whatsoever—at any rate so far. As for the future, we shall see.
7.15 p.m.
But what sort of administrative devolution is it that this Bill is proposing to give to Wales? Indeed, are the proposals for Wales administrative devolution at all? If the intention were to create larger areas in which democratic assemblies could supervise, criticise and executively control the administration of whole spheres of public life and of the services received by the citizens, no one would dream of designating the Henrician Principality of Wales—for indeed in its present form it is no older than the Tudors—as an administrative area. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) remarked, there are parts of Wales—most parts, indeed—which have much closer economic, and more than economic connections with the adjacent parts of England. No one, of course, who sat down to draw administrative boundaries for administrative devolution would hit upon the Principality of Wales.
The reason which has been given by Her Majesty's Government—this is not

disputed by Plaid Cymru—is that the boundaries of the Principality are claimed by the Welsh nationalists to be the boundaries of a nation. It is therefore national devolution and not administrative devolution which is proposed in the Bill, and the proposals for Wales cannot be defended upon administrative grounds.
But what about local government in Wales? Is local government, the administrative devolution to elected local authorities representing the parts of the Principality—even though those parts may have been ill-drawn in the legislation of the Conservative Government—going to be benefited, is it going to be strengthened, by the provisions of this Bill? Of course it is not. Everyone knows that genuine local government in Wales is going to be crushed and squashed if ever the provisions in the Bill come into force.

Mr. Dalyell: And in Scotland.

Mr. Powell: And probably in Scotland, too. If we can get Wales out of the Bill, we can concentrate on exposing the damage which will be done to Scotland by the provisions as they apply to that country.
I ask again, is this administrative devolution? What sort of administrative devolution, or, at any rate, democratic administrative devolution, is it which devolves executive powers to an elected body which has no powers of taxation? How can it be claimed that to set up an Assembly and give it executive power over a whole range of services and yet to deny it the right to raise a penny rate is anything whatever to do with administrative devolution?
Once again, we in Northern Ireland can speak with some bitterness on this subject, for in Northern Ireland, in addition to a district rate which is levied by our district councils, we pay a regional rate. But it is a regional rate which is assessed by Her Majesty's Government as a lump sum. Why is that? It is because our larger elected bodies—all our elected bodies above the small district councils—the bodies which would be entitled to levy regional rate, and which would not, indeed in my view, have the right to administer unless they levied a rate covering a substantial part of the expenditure over which they presided—have been destroyed and have not been restored.
No. This is not administrative devolution in the sense in which it is recognisable in Great Britain or would be recognisable in Northern Ireland. So when my hon. Friends and I say tonight that Wales would be better out of this Bill, whatever other Bill is put forward, there is no inconsistency with our duty to say, and to say on every occasion, to the House of Commons that those whom we represent are still denied all but vestigial democratic control over the administration of their Province in the very smallest matters affecting the individual citizens.
In referring to the fact that the Bill confers upon the Welsh Assembly no powers of taxation, I have returned again to the point which so many speeches in these debates necessarily arrive at—namely, that the position which the Bill would create is a position of radical instability. It cannot stand as it would be left by a Bill of this sort.
The people of Wales have been told that they are a nation and that because they are a nation they are going to have devolved government as set out in the Bill. Is it to be believed that they will submit to being told "Ah, but you are not the sort of nation which can raise taxation"? Are they to be told "The representatives of the Welsh people, in Cardiff assembled, are not fit to vote a rate for the citizens of the Principality"?
Of course, it would not last. They would immediately ask "How can we realise for the people of Wales one-tenth or one-hundredth of the expectations raised in the context of devolution when we are only administering the limited sum dished out to us by the Parliament at Westminster or by a Minister responsible to that Parliament?" They would say "We as a nation cannot be denied the full fiscal rights which are inseparable from nationhood." Accordingly they would say "What is this we find about delegated legislation? Legislation is still to be made for Wales by the Parliament of England—Senedd Lloegr, as we call it. The Minister can make subordinate legislation, or the Assembly can even make subordinate legislation itself; but, of course, it must be under an English Act, made by a Parliament in which we Welsh are a small minority indeed."
Would they not happen to notice the difference between what was proposed for them and what was proposed for the other nation? Would they not say that if one nation has a right to make its laws, another nation has the right to make its laws? There cannot be grades of nations—primary-legislation nations and secondary-legislation nations. What sort of Welshman is it who, going abroad, would he prepared to say "I belong to a secondary-legislation nation"? That is what Wales would be in the United Kingdom. It is a house of cards, which can barely be kept standing to the end of the Committee stage.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Powell: Seeing the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) rise, I am reluctant to break his record of having interrupted, if not 100 per cent.—

Mr. Dalyell: Oh, very well.

Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman renounces his record. In that case I shall conclude by simply saying that if Wales is taken out of the Bill I can assure hon. Members from Welsh canstituencies—Plaid Cymru or not—that they are losing nothing that would last. They are only losing the opportunity to be involved in what will prove—I hope sooner rather than later—to be a contradictory and impossible legislative fiasco. Even as a Welshman, I shall cry "Out with Wales".

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I speak as another Member of Welsh origin who does not sit for a Welsh constituency. It is appropriate that I do so, although it is with some trepidation that I follow the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). The view that I take is as opposite as possible to the one that the right hon. Gentleman has expressed except in one respect—I share his doubts about the validity of the referendum.
In my view, the referendum is not an instrument which should endear itself to parliamentarians. When the Government conceded the pressure for a referendum, perhaps they took the step without full consideration of what the House of Commons as a whole thinks about referenda.
Our experience of the referendum in this country is small. What experience we have does not endear it to us. If


the referendum has a purpose at all—I am not convinced about that—it is to examine what people think about the state of affairs that they are in. That is what was done with regard to the Common Market.
We did not hold a referendum on the Common Market at the time when we were going in. We did not ask the people for permission to do that. If we had, I think they would have told us to stay out. When we ask people to say Yes or No to the question "Do you want this, that or the other?" experience suggests that unless their condition is very bad indeed they will vote to keep what they already have.
In other words, the referendum is a highly conservative instrument that results in people deciding to say "No. The devil we know is better than the devil we do not know."
Therefore, in making this concession I believe the Government have put their heads into a noose. I speak as a supporter of the Bill. Whatever the merits of the case, I think that it is likely, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) has suggested, that the referendum will not go the way in which the Government want it to. On the other hand, it is equally possible for the Government to do precisely what was done with regard to the Common Market and defer the referendum for three years.
At the end of three years I believe that the people of Wales would vote enthusiastically for the devolution which by that time they would have got and would have enjoyed. That is a forecast. The record suggests that wherever a referendum is employed to sound out views on a constitutional matter people for the most part elect to support that which they have experience of.

Mr. Kinnock: In supporting that which they have experience of they might just be right. The other consideration is that, although people who demand referenda usually do so because they believe they will win. Governments who grant referenda usually do so because they know they will win.
The difference between our experience with regard to the Common Market and this experience is that we will not have

been devolved for two years before we have the referendum. There is every reason for saying that, if the people of Wales are to have a genuine voice in this irreversible and major constitutional decision, it must be taken as soon as possible and certainly before the thing is established. It certainly should not take place three years' later.

Mr. Jenkins: My hon. Friend speaks as one who rejects the Bill. He has no faith whatever in the whole proposition of devolution. I readily understand his point of view. He said that the Government would only hold a referendum if they are sure they are going to win. He is therefore suggesting that the Government have made a serious misjudgment.

Mr. Kinnock: That is a maxim I do not entirely accept.

Mr. Jenkins: Whether that is so or not, that is what my hon. Friend said. He is saying that the Government have made a serious miscalculation in holding a referendum now because it is my hon. Friend's view that the Government will not win the referendum. My hon. Friend is trying to have it both ways.

Mr. John Mendelson (Pennistone): Is it not the case that the Government agreed to the referendum before the vote on Second Reading only because otherwise they would never have got the Bill?

Mr. Jenkins: That is a possibility, but it may be a small consolation to the Government who may get the form of the Bill but lose its substance. That might well be the consequence of what they have done.
We shall have time to discuss the referendum later. I mention it in passing because it is relevant to the question about whether Wales will stay in the Bill.
It seems to me that the whole of this discussion to which I have listened but not taken part in till now, has turned on what is to happen in Wales and what is to happen in Scotland. The impression given is that we are proceeding from a state of perfection and that as a result of change, we are likely to land ourselves in trouble. That is the feeling and atmosphere of this debate. I suppose that that is understandable since, in the nature of things, it is the opponents of the Bill who


have been most active, whereas those of us who support it have been less vocal. That is normal in any Committee stage. In this case, however, it is taking place on the Floor of the House and, for that reason, it feels rather less normal than it really is.

Mr. Dalyell: Will my hon. Friend take it from me that the experience in Scotland is that those who have read the Bill and who know most about it, professionally or otherwise, tend to be against it?

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Jenkins: That is always the belief of those with a special view about a subject. As I said when I began my speech, those of us who do not represent Scottish or Welsh constituencies nevertheless have a view about the Bill and have an important decision to take about it, and I want to talk about the Bill, about the proposal in the amendment and about the consequences of it for Britain.
I was saying that the atmosphere in this debate so far had been one proceeding from perfection towards something less perfect. But are we in this Chamber doing anything of the kind? I suggest that those hon. Members who are opposed to any form of devolution are trying to preserve one of the most centralised States in the world. Some years ago I made a tour of Europe. Instead of going to countries, I went to capitals and towns, and I made a comparative study of the powers exercised in different parts of Europe. At the end of it, I found that compared with Bucharest, Budapest, Vienna or Prague—almost everywhere, with the exceptions of Istanbul and Paris—this country was the most highly centralised, and that we devolved less and retained more control centrally than almost any other country in Europe. Therefore, if we see an opportunity to devolve some of these decision-making powers to assemblies elsewhere, we should not dismiss it out of hand.
I am much concerned about Parliament and government. I recognise that our Government are totally constipated with decision making. Decisions are made in the capital city which should not be taken here. Decisions are taken by civil servants in Whitehall which should be taken elsewhere in the country. This Bill is a step in the process of getting rid of some of the decision making to

where it should reside in Scotland and in Wales.
There is no reason why we should not devolve more of the decision-making process to Scotland and rather less to Wales. We have heard the reasons why that is proposed, among them the long history of Scotland and the differences in its judiciary. All of them seem reasonably persuasive.

Mr. Dalyell: But it is not devolving power at all. It is centralising it in Edinburgh.

Mr. Jenkins: My hon. Friend must contain himself. It is reasonable that he will say that the consequences of the Bill are not complete and total devolution. I believe that there is a strong case for English devolution and for English regional government. I believe that English regional government inevitably will follow from this measure. But, because the Bill does not achieve all that everyone wants, because it will not mean equal democracy throughout the country, and because it does not give us the opportunity to create paradise tomorrow, that is not to say that we should not take a small step towards it.
From the point of view of those of us who feel that the House of Commons tries all the time to do far too much, here is an opportunity to get rid of some it. I should have thought that even the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) would be in favour of it. He wants devolution for Northern Ireland, and I cannot see why he wishes to deny to Scotland and to Wales what he wants for Northern Ireland. For once, the right hon. Gentleman's famous logic seems to be missing.

Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman is advancing a reasonable case, so far as it goes. But we are debating this Bill because of nationalist pressure from Scotland and Wales. The Bill owes nothing to the reform of the constitution and the better government of the country.

Mr. Jenkins: If the Bill is good, the fact that it has been pressed upon the Government, for whatever reason, is not important. I argue that the Bill is good and that devolution is good. Therefore, I am not concerned with its causation.
I say that the Bill is a measure which does a great deal of good. If right hon. and hon. Members disagree with me about that. they should have voted against it on Second Reading.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The hon. Gentleman is advancing an interesting argument. But, if he was seeking to produce a pattern of devolution for the whole of the United Kingdom, would he set out to produce a pattern of legislative devolution for all the English regions? Are they to have powers of legislation? Does he say that inevitably we shall get ourselves into that position?

Mr. Jenkins: The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) has not reached a logical conclusion. Because we grant legislative devolution to Scotland and not to Wales, that does not mean that we have to follow the Scottish pattern for England. I believe that the degree of English devolution should be less than that operating in Wales—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] We had better not debate that now. But I am sure that no one will advance the proposition that every piece of devolved power from this Parliament or from Whitehall must be the same for every part of the country. What argument can there be in favour of that proposition?

Mr. Eric Moonman: My hon. Friend asks what is the case against not providing the comparable type of devolution to all parts of the country. Surely the answer is that we maintain a comparable standards. After all, we are one nation. Is not it fair to say that the people who will make this assessment are those who will be on the receiving end of selective devolution?

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The people who will make that decision are here in the House of Commons. The decision-making process remains here.
The hon. Member for Pembroke was wrong when he suggested that devolution will result in no change to nominated bodies. That cannot be the case. Certainly it is not necessarily the case. It follows, surely, that, once Assemblies are established in Wales and in Scotland, the hitherto nominated bodies in those two countries will come under the influence of those Assemblies. If it were

the view—I am sure that it will be—both in Wales and in Scotland that a great degree of nomination should disappear and be replaced by a more elective process, it is very likely that that would occur.
I take an example with which I am more familiar than with some others. I refer to the Arts Council of Great Britain, which is another constipated body, another nominated body and another centralised body which is far too localised in London. It has, in fact, two subcommittees—one of which exists in Scotland and the other in Wales—and in practice these sub-committees exercise a considerable degree of independence. However, the money they get, which is allocated from the Treasury, goes first to the Arts Council of Great Britain, which then hands it on to the Welsh Arts Council and the Scottish Arts Council. After this Bill, the Welsh Arts Council should be financed from the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Arts Council from the Scottish Assembly. That is the right pattern.

Mr. Kinnock: Where will the Welsh Assembly be financed from?

Mr. Jenkins: It will be financed from here. What I am saying is that these bodies, which are at present nominated, will in future, under the Assembly, be elected and be answerable directly to the people of Wales and Scotland. If there are any hon. Members here who reckon that that is not a change for the better, they do not know what they are talking about.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: On this point, does the hon. Gentleman suggest, as a result of his experience as Minister for the Arts, that the arts would be better administered without any nominees who are experienced in the arts, but instead administered directly by the elected body?

Mr. Jenkins: Certainly. If there is a complaint to be made about administration of the arts in this country, it is that this has been carried out by persons from too narrow a group, which has led to a degree of concentration. The arts need a greater representation of artists in the governing bodies and the elected arrangement could provide an opening for this. There would be a closer association


between the people in Scotland and Wales and the provision of the arts.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: The whole House is riveted by the hon. Member's exposition of constipation in the art forms, and the cure which he is suggesting by the laxative of the devolution Bill. When he talks about getting rid of the constipation, he talks about money coming from Wales. But where will the money come from in the first place, as long as there are no money-raising powers given to the Welsh Assembly?

Mr. Jenkins: There may be an opportunity for me to go into this at a later stage in these discussions when we discuss an amendment directly concerned with this point. There will be, after devolution, in this respect as in every other respect, a number of very important decisions which still have to be made centrally. This applies to the arts as it applies to everything else. We are not devolving all powers to the new Assembly. We are giving certain limited powers to be exercised locally. In the case of the arts, many major decisions will continue to be exercised by the Arts Council of Great Britain. But the point is that Welsh decisions will be taken in Wales and Scottish decisions will be taken in Scotland. United Kingdom decisions will continue to be taken here, and that is as it should be.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Abse: From his long and special experience as Minister for the Arts, would not my hon. Friend admit that it is true that there is always in the world of the arts a considerable battle which requires someone of considerable sophistication and with some aesthetic understanding and commitment to mobilise opinion? Is he seriously suggesting, knowing the battles which he lost, as well as those which he won, that these superior county councils, which will include, no doubt, men with a profound knowledge of the drainage systems and housing problems in our valleys, will, with the limited—and always inadequate—sums available to the Assembly, without some outside pressures, allocate money to the arts in Wales on anything like the scale which exists now?

Mr. Jenkins: I would have thought that the allocation would be on an even greater scale. I have much greater confidence in the artistic intentions of the Welsh than I have in those of the English. I would have thought that pressures would continue to be exerted on the Government of the day to maximise the amount of finance which goes out from here to the various Assemblies to enable them to fulfil their functions in relation to the arts.
For the reasons which I have adduced, and not just for Scotland and Wales, but for the health of the United Kingdom as a whole, it is my belief that Wales should be allowed to stay in the Bill and that the Bill should be given a Third Reading in due course.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: In 1976 there was a concerted and successful effort, in which the hon. Members for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) and Pontypool (Mr. Abse) took a prominent and honourable part, to persuade the Government to have a referendum on devolution. The Conservatives took a full part in that effort, and the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) said at the time:
The executive of the Conservative Party in Wales has repeatedly passed full referendum motions, and virtually every constituency association has pressed for a referendum.
He also said that he personally, as Opposition spokesman on Welsh affairs, had supported the plea in a number of speeches.
Most of those people conceded that referenda were not an integral part of the British constitution, and many people argued that they derogate from the sovereignty of Parliament. Nevertheless, they contended that this issue of devolution was of such momentous constitutional importance that, after Parliament had done what it could to improve the Bill, the people should have the final say. We agreed with this, and most people in Wales seemed to concur. I do not think that anyone questioned the sincerity of those who called for a referendum.
Now, however, it seems to transpire that, with the Conservatives at least, this was an opportunist move. This gives rise to suspicion that it was just a cynical ploy, and, far from intending that the people of Wales should make the final


decision, their real hope all along was that Wales should be completely cut out of this measure so that the people would have nothing to decide in the end. The purpose was not so much to have a better Bill but to have no Bill at all for Wales. Some sought to do the same for Scotland on Thursday night, and they were overwhelmingly defeated. If the Tories succeed tonight, that will leave the Scots with both a Bill and a referendum and the Welsh without either.
The Conservatives are telling the Welsh people that they cannot be trusted to decide what is best for themselves. The Tories have never denied that they know what is best for us in Wales. In this case they think they know better than any other party in Wales what is best for us. All the other parties in Wales are agreed that the Welsh people should have some power of authority and of decision in their own affairs, but the Conservatives believe that those decisions should be made entirely in Whitehall and Westminster.
Almost everyone in the House of Commons concedes that Wales is a nation. Even the Conservatives now concede that. They accept that Wales should have a Secretary of State and a considerable measure of administrative devolution, which I interpret rather differently from the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). They concede that it is so important that Wales should have this administrative devolution that the bureaucratic powers of the Welsh Office should be increased.
The Conservatives accept the myriad national nominated bodies in Wales, including the Economic Development Authority and the National Sports Council. Although Wales has no separate system of law, the Conservatives accept that, for the purpose of the administration of law in Wales, Wales must be administered as a national entity. They have quietly accepted the disestablishment of the Church of England in Wales and the establishment of an independent episcopal Church in Wales, together with the other independent national denominational bodies. They accept the National Library, the National Museum, the National University, the National Eisteddfod, the National

Theatre, the National Opera, the national rugby team and other teams.
The Conservatives also accept that in the House of Commons we have Welsh Questions about six times a year, a Welsh Grand Committee that meets about four times a year and a Welsh Day once a year and that we also have the Welsh TUC—which is strong for a Parliament for Wales.
All the national institutions I have mentioned—I could have mentioned a host of others—are accepted by the Conservatives because now they accept that Wales is a nation with her own territory, her own history and her own culture. The Red Dragon is our national banner; "Hen Wlad y Nhadau" is our national anthem. The Conservatives' acceptance of Welsh nationhood has been an advance from the time not so long ago when Wales for the Conservatives was no more than a geographical expression. They now admit that Wales is a historic nation.
If you will permit me, Mr. Crawshaw, I should like to strengthen my point by quoting two lines from a Welsh poet:
Gwyr a aeth Gatraeth oedd ffraeth eu Ilu Glasfedd eu hancwyn a gwenwyn fu.
Those lines come from a great ode written by Aneurin in the sixth century. Perhaps the last line of that stanza would not be inappropriate to the end of the marathon debate on devolution. It goes as follows:
Ac wedi elwch tawelwch fu.
That means after the uproar there was silence.
The earliest surviving Welsh poetry has an elegance which shows that there must have been centuries of tradition behind it. There is no more treasured part of our tradition than our great Welsh literature, which has an unbroken history of 1,400 years. Today the Welsh people are more than ever conscious of the extraordinary continuity of their history and of the deep roots which give them enviable security. They are more conscious of this than they used to be when they were taught in their schools nothing but English history. This is a factor that inspires increasing numbers of them to work for national regeneration. They feel that the character of their effort has a universal validity. They do not ask for themselves anything that they would deny to anybody else.
For some time the Conservatives have acknowledged that Wales is the kind of historic entity that we call a nation. It was they who recognised Cardiff as the capital city of Wales. What they have never done is to concede that Wales should have the power to act as a nation. That is the point at which they are sticking now. That is why they seek to wreck the Bill in relation to Wales. They are prepared to pay lip service to Welsh nationhood, but they will do everything they can to obstruct the power of Wales to act as a nation and to obstruct Wales in the exercise of choice and initiative. They have spoken often of the antiquity of Wales, and many of them are keen antiquarians, but they never speak of a national future for Wales.
What rôle do they see Wales playing in the future? One asks in vain. They give no impression that Wales has any value in herself or that her character and integrity should be defended so that she can fulfil the duty she owes to European civilisation. They appear to be content that Wales should be swallowed in the British State. That British State seems to many of us to harness the ideology of English nationalism and the techniques through which it is expressed.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman referred to Wales' duty to European civilisation. Does he mean by that that he would wish Wales to have a Commissioner in Brussels and a Welsh Minister on the Council of Ministers?

Mr. Evans: Of course we should have all those things. We should have a full voice in Brussels and a place in the institutions mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
I do not think I do the Conservatives an injustice in saying that they think the State takes precedence over the Welsh nation. Theirs is an absorptionist ideal. For them there will always be an England, but the function of Wales is rather to serve England or the British State. This contrasts with the nationalist belief that Wales has value in herself and that it is to herself that she should be true. For us Welsh nationalism is polycentric in the sense that we see our nation in the context of the European and the world community of nations. Against great concepts of freedom, democracy and more power for the people, the Conservatives

reiterate the comparatively light-weight argument about the cost of the Assembly.
Answers to Questions I have asked in Parliament show that every year about twice as much is spent on maintaining the fabric of the Palace of Westminster as will be spent on the capital cost of establishing an Assembly in Cardiff. The running costs are calculated to be about £5 million a year to begin with, rising to £12 million. Even when they have risen to £12 million, they must be seen in proper perspective. For instance, this year £52·5 million is being spent by the British Council on furthering the English language in some parts of the world.
From the point of view of Wales, it is important that the costs of the Welsh. Assembly are spent in Wales, thus giving employment in Wales to Welsh people. That has not been true of prestige projects such as Concorde, in which the costs were almost entirely spent outside Wales, mostly in England.

Mr. Kinnock: Does the hon. Gentleman concede that if the Assembly costs only what he says it will cost, which is a fraction of the cost of maintaining the fabric of this place, it will still be an additional cost because, presumably, this place will be maintained in the manner to which it has been accustomed, although that is pretty inadequate? Secondly, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the whole cost will in justice have to be borne by the Welsh people, which means that it will have to be taken from moneys that would have been available for other expenditure—for example, hospitals and schools? Thirdly, does he agree that if we had had the referendum, for which I know the hon. Gentleman is as enthusiastic as I am, before we reached this stage we could have saved ourselves a great deal of money in any case?

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Evans: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should make so much about costs. Of course £10 million is a large amount, but it must be considered on the basis of being averaged out over the whole of the United Kingdom and in relation to the costs that this Parliament votes each year. For instance, this Parliament has decided that we are to order 385 aeroplanes called the Tornado, which will cost about £10 million each. I may


say that in Western Germany it is estimated that the cost will increase to £15 million each. The cost of each aircraft will equal the total running costs of the Welsh Assembly in one year. The costs must be seen in perspective.
I turn to another argument which has so often been repeated by the Conservatives—namely, that the Assembly is not wanted by the people of Wales. Let us consider some of the polls which the Conservatives have been making great use of in recent weeks. It must be admitted that the polls can be interpreted in different ways. For instance, the most recent poll, from which the hon. Member for Bedwellty quoted, showed not only that a certain number favoured the Assembly or opposed it but that 68 per cent. of the people interviewed were either satisfied with the powers of the Assembly or wanted more powers. In fact, the majority of them wanted more powers.
The previous poll indicated that 70 per cent. of the people wanted equality with Scotland. We must take facts such as these into account. In any case, the issue of whether the people want the Assembly will be decided by the referendum. We are obviously looking forward to the referendum.

Mr. Kinnock: Hear, hear.

Mr. Evans: I am glad to hear that there is some agreement about that on the Labour Benches.
When the Conservatives proclaim that they want to take Wales out of the Bill, to plough Wales, as it were, into the ground and harrow it, I am reminded of what Cromwell said—I believe at the Battle of Dunbar—about the Lord having delivered them into his hands. This is something that the Welsh people do not understand. It is something that the Welsh people will not accept. They believe that they will have this final power of decision. They will be extremely angry if they do not get it.
The Bill is not the measure that Plaid Cymru wished to see before the House but we shall do our best to improve it. If at the end of our proceedings in Committee it is found to decentralise some power to Wales, to strengthen Welsh democracy to some extent by making the

bureaucratic tier answerable to the people's elected representatives; if it genuinely brings some power of government closer to the people of Wales; if it encourages in them some more self-reliance and more responsibility for managing the small and manageable patch that they have in Wales; if it does something to increase their freedom of action as a community and releases some more of their energies as a people—if it does some of those things, as I think it can, thus giving an old people a new chance and, as it were, a new start in life, it will be a measure well worth putting before the people of Wales in a referendum. In that event it may prove to be the beginning of accepting the challenging task of rebuilding in an ancient nation a community in which the best of its national traditions and values will flourish.

Mr. Anderson: The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) is always consistent and always on the same theme. He wants a sovereign nation State of Wales; he wants Wales to have independent representation overseas; he wants separate Welsh armed forces, and he sees the Bill as a useful step along that road. The sad thing is that the Government have apparently been prepared to give him this little step along the road that he wishes to travel.
My right hon. Friend the Lord President talked elsewhere of a measure of home rule. Although the people of Wales might accept to a degree the case for administrative devolution—the valid distinction has been made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) between administrative devolution and devolution to a nation, with all the anomalies, conflicts and different conceptual elements that flow from it—I am confident that they would not be prepared to accept it if they knew that it was the road leading to an independent and separate Wales.
I concede that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State does not see what I have just set out as his ultimate step. My only fear is that there is no obvious stopping point in the measure that he has brought forward because it is not a coherent constitutional proposal for Wales. There would be a logical stopping point if the Liberal


Party's proposal were accepted and there were a federal structure, because limits would then be delineated.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the stopping point is as far as the people of Wales wish to go at any point in time? If this proposal is accepted in the referendum in Wales and it has a majority, that will be the stopping place. If a strong feeling develops that the Assembly should have more power once it begins to operate, the device of a referendum might be used by the Assembly itself to ascertain whether the Welsh people require it to have legislative power. The stopping place is as far as the people of Wales wish to go.

Mr. Anderson: What the hon. Gentleman ignores is the dynamic nature of any such innovation and the extent to which the real choice will be taken away from the people of Wales. They will be forced because of various vested interests to set Wales against England. This is the idea of setting Wales against England. There are vested interests in the Press and among individual Assembly men. The Welsh people will be told "Give us the powers and we will provide what you want." Expectations will be raised. It will be suggested in some way that this constitutional device will be a means of solving the economic problems of Wales. That is the point that has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock).
Inevitably all the pressures will be in favour of greater and greater powers being given to the Assembly. There is the danger that we shall move further along the road that is favoured by the hon. Member for Carmarthen.
The hon. Gentleman has been absolutely straight on this issue, as he is on most issues. I recall when he first came to this place in 1966. He said something that was almost Khrushchev-like—not "We shall bury you in 10 years" but "Within 10 years we shall see a Welsh Parliament." What irritates me is that apparently quite fortuitously the Secretary of State and the Government are now prepared to provide a Welsh Parliament when they do not need to do so. The hon. Member for Carmarthen will be able to go round Wales saying "I told you so. Here it is, signed, sealed

and delivered, within the decade which I promised."
The problem was outlined by the right hon. Member for Down, South in his contrast between the case for administrative devolution, which in Welsh terms would be the natural economic, commercial units of Wales—the north-south links—and national devolution which involves going much further in giving financial power with no obvious stopping point.
Various accusations regarding motivation have been levelled at both sides. An outsider might be cynical about the way that the rôles have been reversed. The Labour Government are now arguing for one Bill and the Conservative Opposition are arguing for two Bills. A few years ago, the rôles were wholly reversed. The then Labour Opposition were arguing for separate treatment for Wales under local government reorganisation and the Conservative Government were arguing for one Bill covering both Wales and England. The impartial outsider—

Mr. Kinnock: Such as me.

Mr. Anderson: —might detect a degree of cynicism and of tactical considerations entering the argument rather than a deep-seated consideration whether there should properly be one Bill or two.

Mr. Grist: I accept to a certain degree what the hon. Gentleman said. Does he accept that the Local Government Act contains Welsh sections separated from the English? One of the major problems with this legislation is that the Welsh and Scottish provisions are so intermingled.

Mr. Anderson: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the matter dispassionately, he will see that tactical considerations entered into the discussion no more than they do now.
I think that I shall please the hon. Member for Carmarthen—I shall certainly be pleased if what I say is accepted by my right hon. and learned Friend—because I intend to vote with the Government. When I first entered Parliament, I was told "When in doubt, vote Labour." I shall always try to maintain that principle.
Despite my scepticism about the Bill, of which I have spoken both in this place and elsewhere, I feel honour-bound to


vote against what I believe to be a wrecking amendment. However, I should not wish my vote to be misconstrued. I appreciate the dangers of silver-tongued orators on the Government Front Bench some months later saying that Parliament endorsed the Bill. I think that the eloquence of my hon. Friends the Members for Bedwellty and for Pontypool (Mr. Abse)—

Mr. Kinnock: In the national stadium.

Mr. Anderson: —will show that the motive was not an acceptance of the broad principles of the Bill. Each of us who is sceptical about the Bill has his or her own dilemma, as the hon. Member for Carmarthen pointed out, because of the Government's volte-face on a referendum. I am sure that the Secretary of State—an objective man if ever there was one—will not argue that he listened to the arguments with his mind not made up about a referendum and that suddenly, like a clap of thunder and flash of lightning on the road to Westminster, he realised "I have been wrong all along. I am now convinced of the case for a referendum deployed so eloquently by my hon. Friends." It does not happen like that.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I am extremely interested in the hon. Gentleman's argument. Does he think that the argument that he is now deploying to defend his action in the Lobby tonight would be equally valid if we were discussing a guillotine motion?

Mr. Anderson: My attitude throughout will be not to support anything which I see as a wrecking measure. I have stated many times that the final say on this basic matter should be with the people of Wales. I shall do nothing to deny them that final say. Therefore, my attitude on the referendum—I hope that the Whips are listening—will depend in part on the timing of any guillotine motion.

Mr. Kinnock: If it is in August?

Mr. Anderson: If it is in August, certainly. If I feel that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is jumping the gun, I shall certainly not support such a motion. If I feel that the Bill is

in a morass, I am unlikely to oppose the guillotine. I shall cross that bridge if and when we arrive at it. I am on the border of being out of order, so I had better stop there.
We know that the Government took the decision reluctantly and took it too late to gain any favour from those of us who for sometime have consistently argued for a referendum. Nevertheless, the decision has been taken. Therefore, the Bill is in a wholly different context.
I maintain my mistrust of the Bill. I believe that it is an unstable, short-term measure. There are conflicts which may lead to separation. The Bill may lead to less democratic representation in that powers will be taken from local authorites. Whole areas of decision-making, such as proportional representation, the status and powers and number of Members in the House of Commons and, in particular, the weight of the Welsh Office in the Cabinet, where the real decisions will continue to be made, have not been properly thought through.
I believe that there was and is a widespread demand in Wales for a referendum. I also believe—not cynically, but as a matter of principle—that, when the rules of the game are changed, those new rules demand greater endorsement than is provided by the House of Commons. It would be wholly inconsistent for me now to snatch the opportunity of a referendum from the people of Wales by an opportunist vote in this debate.
I share the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty that if, by some form of parliamentary manoeuvring at this time—a coalition—Wales were to be excluded from the Bill, we could have some form of stab in the back legend. The hon. Member for Carmarthen is an expert on legends and folklore. I say this not in any disparaging way. We all share the long tradition of the reality of legends in our Welsh history and study of the Mabinogion legends, and so on. There would be a real danger that it could be said that a coalition of Englishmen destroyed the wish of the people of Wales to determine their own future.
The spectre of devolution and national status which has been haunting Wales for a decade, or perhaps a century, as the hon. Member for Carmarthen said, would


receive some impetus if we were now to take Wales out the Bill. That spectre could be exorcised in a referendum if the people of Wales so decided. It will be wholly for the people of Wales to decide how far they want to go and what they conceive to be their own national future. If our people want devolution or separation, no power on earth either will or should prevent them from having it. I believe that they do not want it, but I shall do nothing to deny them the opportunity of making that decision.

Mr. Peter Rees: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) finds himself in doubt, because every intervention of his that I have heard on this subject seemed clearly to point in one direction—against not only the principle but the details of the measure. When he focused on a referendum, he repeated in a milder and perhaps more clearly reasoned way the arguments of the Secretary of State. The most persuasive arguments in favour of a referendum were those advanced by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock).
To suggest that by voting to exclude Wales from the Bill we shall deprive the Welsh nation of the possibility of considering devolution undermines the whole basis of parliamentary government and confirms me in my instinctive antipathy towards the referendum as a constitutional weapon, although there may be rare occasions when it should be invoked. The primary responsibility in considering the question of devolution must rest in a parliamentary system with Parliament.
Secondly, I believe that such debates as there may be, if a referendum is mounted either throughout the country or in Wales or Scotland, will be assisted by the debates that we shall have in the House of Commons. I hope that the difficulties, the dangers and the real points of principle will have been clarified by our interventions.
Finally, it would be quite wrong to leave the country with the impression that Parliament has somehow set its imprimatur on the Bill, which is what the hon. Member for Swansea, East and his hon. Friends—those who are assuming the same position as him tonight—would very likely do by this vote.
In the light of what has been said by the Welsh nationalists, I suppose it is

necessary for those of us who are fortunate enough to speak to declare our credentials to take part in the debate. I am happy that the debate has broadened out from a narrow, regional debate and that hon. Members from various parts of the United Kingdom are playing a part. I was particularly glad to hear the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) speak not only for his Province but for the whole of the United Kingdom. Since, however, the Leader of the Welsh National Party has sought to give the debate a nationalist flavour—I make no complaint about that, because that is the emotional basis of his party's argument—I must tell the Committee that, although I have the privilege to represent an East Kent constituency, I have ties with the Principality, particularly with the county of Monmouth. The present name Gwent has as much connection with Monmouthshire as the name Ghana has with the former territory of the Gold Coast.
I put it to the Secretary of State and particularly to the Lord President of the Council, since he has Welsh connections, that a border county such as Monmouthshire will deserve and need special treatment, not only in relation to a referendum but also on the detailed provisions of the Bill. I hope that there will, in fact, be no need to do that, because I hope that the whole of the Principality will be knocked out of the Bill by the vote tonight. But if against the advice of my hon. Friends and despite the powerful interventions from Labour Members, Wales is left in the Bill, I shall hope for special treatment for the county of Monmouthshire.

Mr. Abse: The hon. and learned Member is presenting an interesting argument. What has he in mind? I appreciate the enormous feeling in Gwent which, in my judgment, is overwhelmingly against an Assembly. Do I detect that the hon. and learned Member has a separate scheme? If so, is it not right for him to indicate what it is? Certainly it would be something to be weighed by the people of Gwent when they are discussing this matter.

Mr. Rees: I am always delighted to respond to such courteous interventions from the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse). He will recall that it was but recently that the statutory provisions


of King Henry VII which specifically excluded Monmouth from the Principality were reversed. There is a strong case for putting the position back to where it was left by that distinguished Tudor king who hailed from the Principality.
I commend to the hon. Member and to the Leader of the House, who has the good fortune to represent Monmouthshire constituency although he does not come from that fair county, that if there is to be a referendum the particular views of the residents of Monmouthshire should be sought and considered on their own. The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that the historical connection between Gwent and Monmouthshire is very remote. That interesting and historic theme should need not be pursued tonight.

Mr. Dalyell: Speaking of Welsh names or Scottish connections, does the hon. and learned Gentleman feel that those residing in England who have ethnic connections with Scotland and Wales should be entitled to vote in a referendum?

Mr. Rees: Yes. It would be a travesty if those of obviously Welsh or Scottish descent could not vote. One has only to see what happens in my own constituency on St. David's Day, when so many people are anxious to reaffirm their connections with Wales, or on St. Andrew's Day, when members of Caledonian societies are so anxious to emphasise their connections with Scotland. It would be wrong if the beliefs of such people were not taken into account. I am grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention because it has enabled me to declare my position, which I have long and keenly held and which is shared by many of those east of Offa's Dyke and south of the border.

Mr. Tom Ellis: Does not the hon. and learned Members accept that a referendum in Wales specifically dealing with Welsh issues would not allow those with Welsh ethnic connections to take part?

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Rees: I am not over-concerned with what has happened in the past on other issues, because this is a constitutional issue of transcendent importance. If there is to be any severing, even on

only a partial scale, of the links that bind the United Kingdom together, we are bound to take account of the fact that not all those persons of Welsh descent are now to be found west of Offa's Dyke. Equally, not all those persons of Scottish descent, whether they be Gaels, or Anglo-Saxon so are to be found north of the border.
The saddest feature of this whole debate is the spurious generation of friction between the component parts of the United Kingdom, because after several centuries of unity we are now a mixed nation. I shall readily concede that perhaps there are more people of purely Scottish descent in, say the West Highlands and more people of purely Welsh descent in, say, Merioneth and Caernarvon than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. However, to ignore the constant emigration from both sides of these historic frontiers is to do violence to the history of our country, and that is a factor which must be taken into account by the Government if they get so far as a referendum.
Let me now turn to the remarks of the leader of Plaid Cymru, who put the case for a separate Assembly for Wales. He based his case on the separate and special identity of the Welsh people. I do not feel that the historic identity of the Welsh people will be best supported, encouraged and affirmed through an emasculated Assembly based on Cardiff. If we are to take a political test of the identity of the Welsh people, I am bound to say, I hope with humility, modesty and a certain amount of diffidence, that the penetration of political life throughout the United Kingdom by people of Welsh descent might be a cause for resentment by those of Anglo-Saxon descent. I have only to invite hon. Members to regard the occupancy of the Chair when the House is not in Committee, and the occupancy of the Woolsack in the other place. Those are only two, and they are not by any means unique, examples of the comparative success of the Welsh people in establishing themselves politically in the councils of the United Kingdom.
If we are to take a professional test—and I choose that because I happen to be a lawyer—many people would think that the Welsh nation was well over-represented in medicine and the law. If we


are to take a cultural test, I do not believe, notwithstanding the rather ambivalent remarks of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins), who had a certain responsibility for these matters, that the cultural vitality of the Welsh people would be advanced one iota by the situation of an emasculated Assembly in Cardiff. It was only too painfully apparent to me that the hon. Member for Putney, notwithstanding his previous incarnation in government, was quite unaware of what the Arts Council had been doing in Wales and was quite unaware of the staggering vitality of Welsh opera. When we come to his rather unattractive physical metaphor, he appeared to be afflicted with a degree of fiscal constipation when he was considering the implications of what he was proposing.
I do not see this Bill as the culmination for Wales of a historic debate. The Secretary of State was compelled to say rather lamely that the Labour Party had been debating this issue since 1965. Seen in these terms, this issue then can hardly be compared with the debates on Home Rule for Ireland. If my memory serves me correctly—the Leader of the Ulster Unionist Party is here and will correct me if I am wrong—Home Rule for Ireland eventuated after three Home Rule Bills introduced by various Liberal Governments.

Mr. Wigley: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman concede in that example of Ireland that the history of Ireland would have been much happier if the first Bill had gone through?

Mr. Rees: I rather wonder. There are pressures on us in this debate, and on another occasion I should be happy to debate the intricacies of that matter with the hon. Gentleman. I wonder, however, whether, if Lloyd George had not lost his nerve at a certain point in 1920, the whole future of the United Kingdom, and possibly of the British Empire, might not have been a little different. To be led into that interesting historical byway might take me out of order, although I hope that the hon. Gentleman has demonstrated how impossible it will be to debate devolution without bringing in the historic Province of Ulster. With, I hope, the benevolent connivance of the Chair, I shall do all I can to assist right hon. and hon. Members representing

seats in that Province to broaden our debates so as to consider their position.
Whatever view one may take of the Irish situation, to try to assimilate devolution for Wales under this Bill with it is a travesty of historical truth. I do not wish to speculate on the private life of the Leader of Plaid Cymru. I hardly see him in the rôle of Charles Stewart Parnell. Because he is such an agreeable Member, I would hardly encourage him to follow in the steps of Mr. Nehru and serve an apprenticeship in a British gaol.
If we disregard the spurious arguments about the Welsh identity and the more spurious ones about the historical processes, we should then look to see what are the real pressures in Wales for an Assembly of this kind. At the moment, the views of any hon. Member may be a little impressionistic on this. I attach no weight to the advertisement which appeared in the Western Mail on Thursday 13th January. Those who put their names, and perhaps contributed their pennies, to that advertisement are numerically small. A rough analysis by me of those names shows, interestingly enough, that the name of the Bishop of St. Asaph—I refer to him in view of what the Secretary of State said—appears twice. This could mean that there is a twinge of conscience in the Principality as a result of the disestablishment of the Anglican Church there and a feeling that the Bench of Bishops should receive its due weighting. Beyond that, one finds that Sir Julian Hodge, demonstrating once again his undying attachment to the causes espoused by the Prime Minister, has also put his name to the advertisement.
I suppose that the largest politically identifiable group of people are those of the Liberal Party. One may draw one's own conclusions—[Interruption.] Of course there are members of the trade unions, and even a leading member of the Ceredigion Conservative Party. But it is a widely spread group, and the advertisement can hardly be called an elitist charter.
I believe that the Bill fails on close analysis from the points of view that I have so far considered. We are therefore forced back, at least in this Committee, to testing the Bill on its merits. Of course there is a real problem to be


tackled by the House of Commons. I believe that this country is over-governed and over-taxed, perhaps over-centralised. There may be a case for diffusing power, but not in this way. We in Dover feel and resent the hand of Whitehall as keenly as do hon. Members and electors in Pembroke, in Sandwich as acutely as in Rhyl, in Deal as deeply as in Aberystwyth. But I wonder whether, within a matter of years of a wholesale and perhaps rather imperfectly constructed reform of local government, we should be embarking on another great constitutional measure.
I therefore ask myself a few simple questions. Will the Bill bring the real government of Wales closer to the people? Will the electors of Caernarvon feel happy to be controlled from Cardiff or, if the day goes against the people of Cardiff, if the Lord President should change his mind—he is often capricious in these matters—and the Assembly were sited in Caernarvon, would the electors of Cardiff be happy to be controlled from Caernarvon?
In sheer miles, by siting this enuch of an Assembly in Wales, the Government could say that they had brought government closer to the people. In a real sense, however, we in Westminster are closer to the totality of Wales than any Assembly sited at random in the Principality itself.
The next question that the Committee should ask itself is whether this so-called measure of devolution will make government cheaper. That can hardly be so, even on the preface to the Bill. A great number of civil servants is to be hired, and great capital expenditure. I am not impressed with the comparison by the Leader of Plaid Cymru with our defence budget. At least there is something demonstrably to this country's advantage in our defence budget. We have in the Bill a mess of pottage on which we should not spend a penny.
The next and, perhaps, rather crude test that I would apply is whether it will simplify the government of the Celtic fringe of this country. [Laughter.] Why introduce another stratum of government? In Heaven's name, government is complex enough. I am glad that repre-

sentatives of the Scottish National Party find a source of merriment in what I have said. We shall turn in due course to the complexities of devolved government in Scotland.

Mr. Wigley: Celtic fringe!

Mr. Douglas Crawford: My hon. Friends in the SNP and in Plaid Cymru were laughing at the use of the phrase "Celtic fringe".

Mr. Rees: That is a very interesting intervention. The hon. Gentleman is conceding by implication that there is no serious ethnic argument for devolution in Scotland because he is recognising—it is not for me to speculate on his own origins—that there is a large proportion of people of Anglo-Saxon origin in Scotland.
It was not my intention to do so, but I have uncovered certain differences of opinion in the Scottish National Party. Perhaps SNP Members will explain whether theirs is an ethnic, cultural or economic argument. The word "politics" in this situation is used to conceal many points which we shall have to examine in due course. One point is lamentably clear: that, once we manoeuvre the SNP off the central theme of devolution, SNP Members speak with at least 13 or 14 different voices. It will be necessary to probe exactly where they stand on the great economic and cultural issues of our time. Are they as homogeneous as they like to pretend?

Mr. Andrew Welsh: If the hon. and learned Gentleman means Scotland, let him say so and not use terms like "Celtic fringe".

Mr. Rees: I used the term only because the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) was advancing an ethnic argument in support of the case for devolution in Wales. It may be that the SNP, for obvious reasons, does not wish to deploy the same argument. No doubt we shall have a chance to test its position later. I do not need to remind SNP Members that at least two-thirds of the population of Scotland are not of Celtic descent. The number of people who speak Gaelic is probably less than the number of people in Wales who speak Welsh.

Mr. George Thompson: May I help the hon. and learned Gentleman with the history of my constituency? When the Romans were here, Galloway had people who spoke the language from which Welsh is descended. Then there was a period when there were Gaels coming into the area from Ireland, and a vast number of our place names are of Gaelic origin.

Mr. Abse: On a point of order, Mr. Crawshaw. Do we have to endure this fascinating lecture during debate on an amendment on the question of whether Wales should be in the Bill? Does it not make still clearer the absurdity of seeking to deal with the affairs of Wales and Scotland at the same time? I am sure that the people of Cardiff, Pontypool and all the Principality are waiting with bated breath to hear how the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson) will continue to explain the fascinating history of his own constituency.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): It has been a wide-ranging debate, but I am not certain that it is not getting a little too wide-ranging. Perhaps we could return to the amendment.

Mr. Rees: I had not meant to expose the Committee to the history, interesting though it may be, of the ethnic origins of tthe people in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. There will be time enough for that on another occasion.
Test this measure how one will, there is no substantial case for including Wales. Why, then, has it been included? Is it because the Secretary of State wishes to be true to his own rather flirtatious political past? It is not only the Bishop of St. Asaph who has changed his position on political matters. Is it that the Lord President, newly arrived in Monmouthshire from Cornwall, wishes to demonstrate his Celtic virility? I do not believe that is the case.
What underlies the Bill is a rather squalid compact between the Government and the Welsh National Party. The Government need the votes—yes, even three votes—of those hon. Gentlemen to maintain themselves in difficult periods. I believe that this is not a compact to which I or the Welsh people—certainly not those east of Offa's Dyke—or, indeed,

the more perceptive among Labour Members need subscribe. I shall vote for the amendment with enthusiasm and relish.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Fred Evans: It has been said that without the efforts of a few of us this debate would not have taken place and that this mater would probably have gone through on the nod. I am sure that that is not true when we bear in mind the number of English voices that have been heard in this debate.
A little earlier I raised a point of order seeking to draw attention to some issues which are bedevilling the future of Wales in the United Kingdom, which will have a significant part to play in the future of Europe. It is a matter of regret that I must add to the point of order by handing to Mr. Speaker tomorrow morning a matter involving privilege. That matter arises from a newspaper article by a man who calls himself the secretary of the, Trades Union Congress of Wales. In that article he threatens those of us who have carried on the fight to secure a referendum that we had better watch ourselves very carefully in future, presumably from the point of view of our political security.
One of my constituents addressed a letter to Mr. Speaker asking what he intended to do in ruling on such matters. It is a matter of intense regret to me that this kind of issue should be raised in these discussions. It is also a matter of regret that in the early days when we conducted the fight for a referendum we were jocularly referred to by the Secretary of State for Wales as "the referendum boyos". The "boyos" now find themselves in the not unusual situation of Welsh rugby teams, because when we take a count we find that we have at least 16 men on our side because the Secretary of State has joined us. We may have a much larger number at the next count.
The holding of a referendum was secured by the pertinacious efforts of a few people. It is now a matter of history that this question was first raised in my constituency. That constituency has always shown a deep sense of responsibility and a strong interest in matters affecting ordinary people. The exercise was not undertaken lightly. I do not like, any more than any other hon. Member likes, the use of the referendum as a means of government. But we have stipulated a


condition that referenda should be held only on a matter of grave constitutional importance, a matter which could be shown to be one that would have a vital effect on generations to come and on the future of the country.
It is therefore a matter of regret that we find the referendum referred to as it has been by the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees). It is regrettable that there should be faulty names, double entries, and trade unionists denying that they ever consented to having their names inserted. There is an aura of suspicion and the net result has been intensely regrettable to those of us who have compaigned for the referendum because we were determined that the voice of the people of Wales should be heard. We went no further than that. I can remember, in responding to an intervention by the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) during a debate, saying that if the people of Wales by a free, unfettered vote showed that they wanted to have a separate Wales, I would honourably try to work to make their wishes come true.
In the situation that is now developing, people's attitudes are changing. Already the referendum for which we fought so hard is being overshadowed by serious doubt about the influences that will be brought to bear upon it. I shall say no more about this aspect of the issue, other than to repeat that tomorrow I will take the opportunity of laying documents before Mr. Speaker in order that he may give his ruling. I do not want to prejudge his ruling in any way.
What motivated much opposition to devolution in Wales was a determination that there should not be a break-up of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has led to an association of free peoples, developing their own kinds of free institutions and their own social democracy. The United Kingdom has played a significant part in the broad world of today and it still does so. We find ourselves enriched by this close contact. We give incalculable strength to one another. Some regions are blessed with great cultural development; others have been the subject of intense industrial exploration and productivity. Politically, economically and culturally we share so many things that, if we had to operate

alone, we would be a far less happy country than we are today. I do not say for one moment that there are things in our society that do not need radical attention. The threat to the United Kingdom was the development of a national consciousness finding its expression through nationalist parties in Wales and Scotland.
A heavy responsibility must lie upon those who were panic stricken by a few by-election results. I sometimes think that the only people who were not panic stricken were those fighting the elections. They were usually too busy to have time to panic. The Government got themselves on a hook by promising some kind of devolution. They promised it too lightly and without the necessary deep examination.
There have been broad suggestions about devolution in Wales for many years, but not enough work in depth has been done to arrive at correct conclusions. For example, many of us would applaud what has been said about the need for a thorough overhaul of local government and an examination of its rôle in undertaking the duties of the many nominated organisations which have created so much animus in Wales. It must be said, however, that this animus is all too often spurious, because the Bill will make little change in regard to nominated organisations.
We are deeply concerned about the financing of devolution. Some hon. Members have already pointed out that there is almost bound to be some backlash. I referred in my last speech to the problems which could arise in some industries. For instance, we know how bedevilled mining has been by regional wage structures and how difficult it was to get a unified approach in the British coalfields because of the various structures in the fields.
After many years of strenuous effort, this difficulty was overcome, but how much longer would it last and how much longer could teams of pit workers go from region to region getting comparable payments for their jobs? Could we expect that they would get the same pay if they moved from a field which is only occasionally economic—such as the Welsh field—to, for example, a developed Selby with its gigantic wealth of coal?
Human nature being what it is, can anyone doubt that there would not be voices raised for separate treatment by people working in more economic regions? That would be the beginning of a return to the old system and the undoing of a great deal of work by the trade union movement.
From this would flow, in all probability, a fragmentation inside British trade unionism. Is that not much more likely to occur if there is fragmentation at administrative levels? Would it not be said to Wales that, we should have a small coal board and operate on our own? It is all very well to express pious hopes that this kind of thing will not come about, but a study of history, especially economic history, shows that all too often it is quite easy to put the clock back.
9.0 p.m.
So we have said, and keep saying, that, having secured a referendum, the people of Wales and Scotland should be allowed to speak uninhibited by external pressures. We cannot avoid them all, but at least we can see that the balance is kept reasonably fair. In my constituency, the determination—no longer as evident as it was—was that we should have a fair referendum and that, the people having spoken, we would abide by that decision. Now we are no longer convinced that we shall get a fair balance to put before our people, and from that situation will come the resistance.
We are worried about the situation in local government, where the cart has already been put before the horse. We are worried about the ability to pay. Where is the money to come from? Is it to come from powers of taxation in the Assembly? Is it to come from elsewhere? That view was evidenced by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins), who was apparently quite happy to say "We will have all the reforms, but the money will come from elsewhere." The sums asked for by Plaid Cymru for Wales are astronomical, and we are worried about where the money is to come from, only to be told by Plaid Cymru that it will come from a separate Welsh economy.
So we say that the future of Britain remains as a united Britain and that where reforms are needed they should be carried out across the broad spectrum of

the nation as a whole. We say that we should give the people in our countries the chance to express their own opinions about some kind of devolution. We say that, in the final analysis, they must realise that, if they decide to go their separate paths, they must face the economic, social and political implications of those separate paths. We say that, if they are not brought face to face with those implications, time will hold bitter reproaches for them and even more bitter reproaches for those who allowed such a chain of events to be set in motion.

Mr. Grist: As the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans) and others indicated, we are really talking about devolution in the Bill because of the panic set up in both major parties, but in particular in the Labour Party, by localised nationalist successes. We are not debating what we should perhaps be debating—a wholesale reform of our constitution, including the place of the upper House, representation in Europe, and the rest. We are discussing localised nationalist-based proposals.
It would be as well for us to consider the Government's proposals in the Government's own words and set what they have called for alongside what they are now proposing.
To that end I would remind the Committee of what the Secretary of State for Wales said in June 1974, when he outlined four proposals for devolution. He said that any proposals should be judged on the basis of these four principles. The right hon. Gentleman said, first, that the taking of powers from a central body should meet a genuine need; secondly, that they should be based on widespread public support; thirdly, that any changes should be clear and a definite improvement; and fourthly, that they must be designed to provide a stable constitutional framework for the future.
It is only fair that the Secretary of State should justify every proposal in the Bill as it affects Wales against those four principles that he enunciated. They are excellent principles and I recommend the right hon. and learned Gentleman to go back to them.
If devolution is itself a good thing, we might expect that the Government, in looking at devolution in England, would be as enthusiastic as they have been with


regard to Scotland and Wales. The argument is that it has nothing to do with nationalism. If so, does not the argument hold good for England as well?
Therefore, we should consider why what is proposed for Wales in the Bill is not apparently suitable for England. If we take the Secretary of State's "genuine need" argument, it turns out that in the White Paper on England one of the needs for Parliament is that there should be more time to consider legislation. The argument is that when we have Scottish and Welsh Assemblies the House of Commons will have more time to consider its legislation.
That is not true. We all know that there will be just as much legislation with regard to England in the House of Commons if there is a Scottish Assembly and a Welsh Assembly as there is now. There will not be any more time. If there was any more time, I am absolutely certain—as are other hon. Members—that every Ministry in the land has Bills up its sleeve and is only waiting for the opportunity to slot them in. There will not be more time in the House of Commons when we have Scottish and Welsh Assemblies. That, apparently, puts the need element in some doubt.
We then come to the Secretary of State's statement that any such move should enjoy widespread public support. Does the Secretary of State really believe that the proposals for a Welsh Assembly enjoy widespread public support in Wales? If he does, would he point to the proof? Would he demonstrate where his confidence lies?
It would not be in the 700 names listed in the Western Mail, because one can produce 700 names for almost anything. One hesitates to think, but, nevertheless, one could produce a better list of 700 names that had been properly edited and culled through and which, at the end of a letter for signatures, did not say:
Please add your signature and position"—
that is a real elitist touch—
and those of anyone else you feel appropriate.

Mr. Kinnock: I would draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to a letter in today's Western Mail written by Professor Davies and Mr. Gwyn Morgan, the Chairman and Treasurer of the Wales for

an Assembly Committee. It states that the request for "positions" appearing in that advert was "a misunderstanding". That is extraordinary in view of the evidence that the hon. Gentleman has brought before the House that the original letter that went out to would-be signatories asked specifically for their position and that of anyone else they thought appropriate in order to give some legitimacy to this crazy scheme.

Mr. Grist: It may be that the literacy of some of these gentlemen is in doubt. They must have produced the advertisement at great speed. But it seems that certain headquarters have felt justified in bunging in the names of some of their staff without asking their permission, in the rather arrogant belief that because a person belongs to a particular body he must believe in that body's official policy. As and when—and if—we come to a referendum, there will be some big surprises for those who believe in that.

Mr. Wigley: The hon. Gentleman says "If and when we come to a referendum". Is he now in favour of a referendum, bearing in mind that he denied that a short time ago on television?

Mr. Grist: I have always been against referenda. I believe them to be against the constitution. But, when we have a Government who ride roughshod over public opinion, if it is the only way of preventing the passage of a measure which will affect the United Kingdom I have to go along with the proposal.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Is my hon. Friend aware that the letter which was sent out inviting signatures carried the following paragraph:
We believe that a substantial majority of the people of Wales wholeheartedly welcome the creation of such an Assembly"?
If my hon. Friend looks at what appeared in this advertisement, he will find that the 600 signatories are already in retreat because they say in it:
We believe that a majority of the people of Wales will, in a referendum, welcome the creation of such an Assembly.
It appears that some of the people concerned with the advertisement realised how absurd it was to claim that the majority of the people of Wales gave the Government's proposals their wholehearted support.

Mr. Grist: My hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) is right, as was the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), to draw attention to the very clear threat contained at the end of the advertisement, to the effect that any frustration of their aspirations
'would dangerously threaten a social harmony in Wales and relationships in Britain as a whole.
I am afraid that that is on a par with the statement by the Leader of the House that to frustrate this movement would promote an Ulster situation in Wales. That was also to misunderstand the feelings and aspirations of the vast majority of the people of Wales—

Mr. Mendelson: My right hon. Friend did not say that.

Mr. Grist: I am afraid that it gave a certain spurious authority to those who would go off on wilder courses.

Mr. Roy Hughes: As I understand it, of the 600 or 700 signatories whose names appeared in the Western Mail, two or three have said that there must have been some mistake and that they did not intend their signatures to appear on the advertisement. This is a very large number of signatures, and they are very representative of the life of Wales—from bishops to NUM officials, it might be said. But, if a motion appears on the Order Paper of the House of Commons and 60 or 70 signatures are appended to it, a day or two after its appearance invariably there is a disclaimer from some hon. Member who says that his signature was included in error, or something of that kind. The fact that there were 600 or 700 signatures to that contribution in the Western Mail makes it a pretty bone fide advertisement, in my view.

Mr. Grist: "Qualified" might be a better word. The signatures include that of a 14-year old school boy whose father seems to have bunged in the names of all his family; they include that of the leader of the Labour Party in Swansea, who certainly did not give permission for his name to go forward; they include the name of one of my local councillors, that of the principal of one of the university colleges—how his name got in without his permission, I cannot imagine—and those of two members of the

Transport and General Workers' Union who are actively anti-devolution. How did their names get in?

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Albert Costain): I hope that the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Grist) will remember that this advertisement has been the subject of a great deal of discussion today. It would help the Committee if he would get back to the business in hand.

Mr. Kinnock: For the sake of accuracy, it is necessary to specify that, unlike signing an Early-Day Motion in the House of Commons, this act of signing in the case of the advertisement—

The Temporary Chairman: I draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that this has been discussed a lot already, particularly by the hon. Member.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Costain. The last thing I want to do is to cause difficulties for you. But it is difficult to know how the advertisement, which is intended to convince hon. Members taking part in this debate of the necessity of keeping Wales in the Bill, can be out of order.

The Temporary Chairman: It is not a question of the advertisement being out of order. I was referring to tedious repetition. The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) has referred to it quite a lot. Mr. Grist.

Mr. Kinnock: rose—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I called Mr. Grist.

Mr. Grist: I give way to the hon. Member for Bedwellty.

Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I want to avoid repetition of all kinds, including tedious repetition. But since my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) raised the analogy between signing the advertisement and signing an Early-Day Motion, I should point out that in the latter case signatures are collected at all hours of the day and night, and in the former case to get one's name on the advertisement one had to make a subscription of money and provide a signature after reading a letter. In the


circumstances it is extraordinary to tell us that names could possibly have been entered in error.

Mr. Grist: Indeed, it is most extraordinary, but it is a most extraordinary list.
We then come to the Secretary of State's third touchstone for devolution, that any change should be a clear and definite improvement. One might ask for whom the improvement must be. The onus of proof must be on the Government. It is not for those who oppose it to say how it will not be an improvement. The onus is on the Government to show that there will be an improvement, and so far they have signally failed to even try to do so.
In what we might call the English document, paragraph 20 rejects English regional assemblies, partly on the basis that many domestic matters might show
marked differences over short distances in England".
This is one of the great dangers of devolution—that there will be a growing divergence in law and practice over very short distances in the United Kingdom. Those are the words of the Government themselves. If that could happen in England, how much more is it likely to happen in a little country such as Wales, alongside such a giant country, relatively speaking, as England.
In paragraph 30 on block grants to Scotland and Wales, the Government state that these will be settled annually
subject to the approval of Parliament, and normally, it is expected, with the agreement of the devolved administrations.
Really? Does anyone really believe that if there is a Socialist Assembly in Wales and a Conservative Government in Westminster, and there is anything like the situation which exists today, there would be any agreement whatever? Does anyone believe that? If they do, what is he doing in the House of Commons, and if he does not why is he supporting the Government's proposals? Does he really believe that any public body which has the power to spend on this scale without the odium of raising the money will not fight all the way with the grant-giving Westminster body with whom it has to deal? Of course it will fight.
On block grants the Government say in paragraph 74:
Such block funds would make the Government's task of economic management more difficult. The composition of expenditure is important because different types of expenditure have different effects on important economic aggregates, such as the balance of payments, the public sector borrowing requirement, and unemployment, as well as different effects on the various sectors of the economy.
It is not simply a case of Westminster voting the block grant and saying to the Welsh and Scots "Here is your money. Go and do what you like". The Government will be taking into account the balance of payments, the public sector borrowing requirement and unemployment. If the Government fear that the Scots and the Welsh are not prepared to operate through the block grants in those fields, the discipline on the economy will fall on the English, because they will be the only element left on which the Government will have a direct political pull. Or did not the Government know what they were talking about when they wrote the White Paper "The English Dimension"?
Paragraph 54 deals with local government reform—the argument that if we have a Welsh Assembly we can do away with the county councils and have 19 unitary authorities in place of the eight counties of Wales, with 19 directors of education and 19 directors of social services. All these first-rate people are hanging around. There are many more than eight in Wales who could head these administrations and that, presumably, would save money. One of the great arguments for unitary authorities is that they will save money.

Mr. Hooson: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the Conservative Government's reform of local government was one of the causes of the great increase in public expenditure, and that many Welsh counties have innumerable assistant directors of education who could all become directors of education of unitary authorities?

Mr. Grist: I do not deny that certain economies could be effected in local government, but it ill becomes hon. Members to be too hard on local government expenditure when the House of Commons spends a great deal of time passing legislation which imposes duties on local


government without giving it the funds with which to operate. That is sometimes a cheap gibe. I remind the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) that the new authorities came into being at the time of the inflation explosion and they got a bad name because of that. The local authorities in the hon. and learned Gentleman's area were breaking down because they could not afford to employ the staff to which they were entitled under the previous scheme.

Mr. Roy Hughes: A motion has been tabled by the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton), signed by many Conservative Members, in the following terms:
in view of the mounting disquiet regarding the structure, manning, salaries, efficiency and constantly increasing responsibilities of local government, this House appoints a Select Committee to appraise the situation".
That gives a rather different Conservative slant.

Mr. Grist: It underlines what I said. The Select Committee will look at the duties imposed on local authorities. To that extent I support the motion. It is in no way in conflict with what I said.
Paragraph 54 is about the establishment of elected regional executive authorities, which is precisely what is proposed for Wales. It reads:
The establishment of elected regional authorities of this type would thus in practice directly involve a comprehensive reorganisation of local government … Many functions of the counties would therefore need to be raised to the new regional authorities.
Planning is the obvious example. Instead of planning being at county and district level it would be at all-Wales level—and that brings local government closer to the people? Will those who support the abolition of counties please tell all their councillors and constituents that planning decisions for Flint, Pembroke and Merioneth will be taken in Cardiff?
Paragraph 68 of "Devolution: The English Dimension" states
The transfer to elected English regional bodies of powers at present exercised by Ministers (whether at a departmental headquarters or in a regional office) would have far-reaching constitutional implications. In particular it could directly reduce their ability to maintain national policies on devolved subjects, limit the rôle of Parliament and restrict the scope of the work of its Members.

That is the Government recognising that if we have elected regional authorities in England, the power of Members of Parliament will be reduced. That is precisely what will happen to the powers and probably the numbers of Members of Parliament from Wales and Scotland.
Will those who support the Government's proposals in the Bill go to Wales and explain their effect to the people of Wales, or will they go round assuring people that there will be no cut in the powers and the numbers of their Members? If the latter statement is true, surely what the Government state in the English White Paper cannot be true. We all know from the reaction of English Members on both sides of the Chamber that they will not put up with Scottish and Welsh Members interfering in their home affairs when they have no say in home affairs of Wales and Scotland.
We come to the last of the Secretary of State's touchstones on devolution, and he has said that they must provide a stable constitutional framework for the future. Who believes that? The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) has said that he has always seen devolution as the way to make progress towards a greater degree of self-government for Wales. That is what he believes, and I believe he is right. The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) has said that the Assembly, though almost certainly Labour-controlled, will become a part of the nationalist movement. That is the fact.
We are debating the Bill because of the presence of nationalists in this place. They see the Assemblies as the vehicles to further their aims. There can be no doubt that in the nature of the way in which these bodies are being set up—they are non-fund raising, only spending in certain areas, but with all the authority of being elected—there is the prospect of more and more powers being given to the Assemblies, to an extent that Westminster cannot hope to stop. It would be a one-way process and there would be no way in which the House of Commons could reassert its powers over the powers that it had given away.
Ultimately, the Welsh Assembly will undermine, or at least severely damage, people's faith in democracy. I believe that it will further estrange people from relevant institutions. As has already been


pointed out, it cannot answer the real needs, demands and desires of the people. It cannot provide one more job in Wales. It cannot provide one more home in Wales. It cannot hold down one price in Wales. It can do nothing that the people really care about at bottom.
If the Government had only paid attention to some of the smaller statements in the Kilbrandon Report, they would have noticed that the Kilbrandon Commission was impressed by the fact that the people of Wales and Scotland did not so much worry about where their Government came from so much as the success of their Government. I am afraid that what we have been asked to support in the Bill is dangerous and misguided. It is an illusion and it is based on funk.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Abse: This debate has been quiet in the latter hours. We had a more spirited, though not necessarily better informed, debate earlier.
There is bound to be a certain ambience in this place, which is not characteristic, when we speak now. With the possibility of a referendum, it is clear that we are talking not only to each other in trying to shape opinion but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) rightly said, as part of a referendum campaign. Therefore, we should be ready to inject into our speeches not only the sophistications, the manner and practices of this place but language, simple and direct, which will clearly reach the electorate and inform them of the issues involved. Indeed, we must sometimes speak to them in dramatic terms. As we are concerned with Wales, we must certainly speak to the people with elan, polemics, warmth and vigour. I should not want to participate in this important debate in any manner which would suggest that I want it to be a cosy debate. This is an important debate which will impinge considerably on the future of the Principality.
In assessing whether one should vote for the amendment. one should ask why we are presented with a Bill which does not disengage Wales from Scotland. There has been no answer to that question, despite the fact that hon. Members on both sides have repeatedly questioned and challenged the fusion of the two

countries into one Bill. Despite all the questions, there has been no reply whatsoever by the Leader of the House or the Secretary of State for Wales. Excuses are now advanced. It is suggested that if we support the amendment we shall wreck the Bill. From the beginning, after all the importuning which has gone on and after all the admonitions, no one has given an answer to the question because no one dare give the true answer. The Government—the Secretary of State for Wales in particular—knew full well from the beginning the reaction that would come from the people of Wales. They wanted to evade public opinion in Wales because, as I have said and will repeat, they wished to hang on to the kilts of the Scottish oil sheikhs.
Wales has been insulted. The people of Wales are being disregarded by the Secretary of State for Wales and by the Leader of the House. They are dismissing with contempt the idea that Wales should have a Bill of its own—a Bill which would be totally different in its aims and structure from the provisions of the Bill which impinge upon Scotland.
In considering my response to the amendment, I have to say that my constituents, whom I proudly represent, are being treated with rare contempt. The people of Wales are being told that, although this is the biggest constitutional change which has ever taken place in Britain and despite the fact that it impinges upon Wales more than upon anywhere else, the Leader of the House has decided, without one word of explanation, that they cannot have a separate Bill.
There are important consequences that I must take into account when considering the amendment. I have a duty to concern myself with the attitude of hon. Members who represent English constituencies. I do not take a provincial view, a parish-pump view or a xenophobic view of the Bill. I am aware that there are hon. Members who represent English constituencies who, perhaps reluctantly, believe that they must face certain political realities and who when Second Reading came decided, with importuning by Scottish colleagues, that they had no alternative but to agree to the passage of the Bill. The telescoping into the Bill of the Welsh aspect has caused severe embarrassment to many English hon. Members because they have learned from


the debates that there is nothing like unanimity on the issue in Wales.
Those of us who have to face our own electorates know that it is we who persuaded the Government to have a referendum because we are so confident about the final verdict. When I am asked to vote for the amendment, against it or abstain, I have a duty to ask why I should further embarrass English hon. Members when the opportunity is open to the Government to have a separate Bill. What of the Scots? Are they not also placed in a difficult position? There are bound to be those who believe that the Bill is a repugnant, placatory gesture to nationalism and that it is repugnant to everything that involves international, democratic Socialism.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Abse: I shall not give way. I shall deal with the issues in my own time.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Give way.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for Pontypool is not giving way.

Mr. Abse: I wish that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) would contain himself. He made a particularly vicious attack on me in the Second Reading debate, and I have more important things to deal with than to reply now to him. I shall be dealing with all these matters later. I shall give him a full opportunity when the time comes.

Mr. Norman Buchan: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Abse: Of course.

Mr. Buchan: My hon. Friend referred to Scottish hon. Members. The short answer is that they will not be embarrassed. My hon. Friend claims credit for achieving the referendum. Is it not strange that he should now argue the case for two Bills when we are now discussing the Bill that is in front of us and the only one that we will have this Session? Why does he argue a case which basically would deprive the Welsh people of an opportunity to decide in a referendum?

Mr. Abse: I am coming to the issues and going through the considerations I

must make when deciding my attitude to the amendment. Be assured that I claim only that primarily with my Welsh colleagues, and with the aid of hon. Members from the Opposition side as well as from this side of the House, we brought about the referendum. I will before the end of my speech, because there is plenty of time and the night is young, come to the issue to which my hon. Friend has rightly directed attention.
Though my hon. Friend may regard the way in which the telescoping of the Bill affects Scottish Members as unimportant, what must be abundantly clear to everyone is that, precisely because so many Welsh Labour Members are antagonistic to the Bill, we shall be involving ourselves in these debates, perhaps in every amendment affecting Scotland and certainly in every amendment affecting Wales. We shall be an incubus on the back of the Bill the whole way. If Scottish Members can look with indifference at that, they underestimate the pertinacity and persistence of Welsh Members who feel that they have a duty to speak up for and protect their own areas.
It would clearly be much wiser, and, in the interests of Scotland, that the Bill should deal only with Scottish affairs and for Wales to be left out. But why is the Leader of the House so concerned that the Welsh Members should deal with the Scottish situation? Why have he and the Secretary of State for Wales created the unnecessary situation now presented to us which clearly causes offence in Wales and, I should have thought, in Scotland too?

Mr. Buchan: May I ask my hon. Friend a specific question, which he has answered so far with certain threats concerning the effect on Scotland of the Bill? If he claims the credit for and takes pride in the referendum, why does he seek to pre-empt a decision on the referendum?

Mr. Abse: My hon. Friend is too impatient. I shall deal with the question of a referendum. It is kind of him to insist on giving me credit for it, but I claim credit with my colleagues—that is if one can claim credit for such an instrument when we have a Parliament.
I want to take account of the position in which Wales will find itself in its relations with its Members when the Bill becomes an Act. It is a most curious feature that the Government should attempt to impose upon us a Bill of this kind when one bears in mind that the Leader of the House has been a passionate instructor of us all on the sovereignty of Parliament. He has been insistent during the whole of his political life that at all costs we must protect the sovereignty of the House of Commons and of this Chamber in particular. No one has tutored hon. Members more in this doctrine. No one has insisted more upon the supremacy of Parliament or been a more jealous guardian of it up to now than my right hon. Friend.
Now we have a Bill which, in practice, will mean that half the work is to be taken away from Welsh Members and handed over to Assembly men. This will apply over a wide range of matters—education, housing, health and social services. It will not be possible for an hon. Member representing a Welsh constituency to question Ministers in charge of those Departments, because those matters will be dealt with down in the Cardiff Assembly.
9.45 p.m.
The guardian of the rights of the House of Commons presents us with this proposition and asks us to acquiesce. When our constituents come to us on social security or education matters, we shall have to say that they are not matters for us and that they must go to their Assembly men. We shall have to say that we have no leverage and that we cannot question Ministers or initiate Adjournment debates on those matters.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: If the hon. Gentleman has read the Bill, he will know that social security is not to be devolved.

Mr. Abse: Certain aspects of social security are certainly to be devolved. I shall not go to the minutiae, but that intervention in itself is an acknowledgment that the bulk of my argument is correct—that a huge weight of the work calculated by the Government at half, of Members representing Welsh constituencies will be given to an Assembly and we shall be reduced over that area to political eunuchs. I hope that the Leader

of the House will explain how he reconciles his fidelity to the supremacy of this the House of Commons with the fact that he deliberately and calculatingly intends to cut down the work of those Members in that rash manner.
Already amendments have been tabled suggesting a diminution of the number of Scottish Members, and there are intimations of similar amendments in regard to Welsh Members. If the Bill goes through, how can it be argued, when half our work will have gone to Cardiff, that we should retain similar numbers here, participating in the work of hon. Members representing English constituencies and debates on matters in which they will have no say so far as Wales is concerned?
Those who are concerned with the future of Labour government should realise that, if the Bill went through as it is and a Conservative Government came to power, it would follow inexorably that seats would immediately be extinguished. The present arguments justifying the disproportionate numbers of Members for Wales could no longer be sustained. The Leader of the House, with the collusion of the Secretary of State, in the belief that they will gain some temporary advantage, are guaranteeing that in the long run the radical elements which Wales and Scotland have consistently produced to provide the Labour majorities will be snatched away in a miserable piece of transitory opportunism because of a failure to stand up to a swelling of nationalism in a few areas.

Mr. Dalyell: This is not only a question of disproportionate numbers. Is it not also a question of however many Scots Members there were—say we were reduced to 36—voting on issues for which we should have literally no responsibility? The question of numbers does not make it right. How, in terms of this Labour Government, could the present Lord President or the present Prime Minister, who represent Welsh constituencies, initiate delicate English or housing legislation for which they themselves would have no constituency responsibility?

Mr. Abse: My hon. Friend has underlined my argument.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House represents one of the smallest constituencies in Wales. If anybody is guaranteeing his own liquidation, it is


my right hon. Friend when he puts forward this proposition. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear."] Whatever cheers may come from the Opposition Benches, there will be no cheers from me. I know the contribution my right hon. Friend has made to the Labour movement, even though he has so extraordinarily misled himself by being seized in this paroxysm of English romanticism.

Mr. Powell: May I offer the Lord President the reassurance that when there is equitable representation in the House of Commons there will be additional seats in Northern Ireland for which he would, no doubt, be considered.

Mr. Abse: We in Wales are too fond of my right hon. Friend to want to lose him into the bogs of Ireland.
There are more serious consequences even than the extinguishment of seats, consequences for hon. Members representing English constituencies in particular. As a Socialist, I cannot understand how one measures people's needs according to whether they are Welsh, English or Scottish. I am well aware, as all of us who have been there must be, of the acute problems in the centres of so many of our cities such as Liverpool. They are grim problems. I am aware, as everybody must be, of the problems of the North-East. When, as Socialists, we decide how we should allocate such money as is available, the criterion is obviously that of need. We do not ask whether the man concerned comes from the North-East or from Liverpool. That is not the measure.
Let hon. Members representing English constituencies fully understand the position. Each year there will be a battle between the Assembly and Parliament over funds. Each year, whatever is obtained will be regarded as insufficient. Each year, as an alibi for all the deficiencies that there will be within the Principality, under the control of the Assembly, it will be claimed that the English Government—as Plaid Cymru Members describe it—were responsible. Each year the Chief Executive of the Assembly and all his merry men and women will say "If you don't give us extra money, the nationalists will take over."

Mr. Timothy Raison: The hon. Gentleman is underrating the fre-

quency with which these battles will take place. They will take place not only each year, when the block grant is settled, but every time there are public expenditure cuts after that.

Mr. Abse: The system contains an inbuilt exacerbation of relations between Parliament and the Assembly. But the relevance of this, which I am putting to hon. Members representing English constituencies, is that if the Government begin on their course of appeasement, if they make the original placatory gesture, they will be compelled to continue on that course. Hon. Members representing English constituencies must ask themselves where the money is coming from. It will come from the money now being allocated to Liverpool, the North-East and all those areas in need, because we shall suddenly have introduced a new criterion—not need, but whether one lives beyond Offa's Dyke.

Dr. Phipps: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to consider what might happen if the Welsh or Scottish Assembly unilaterally decided to exceed its block grant in any one year?

Mr. Abse: The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) correctly said that there was an inbuilt instability in the whole system. It is not a question of creating a machine with boundaries. It is an open-ended scheme which, by its nature and by the declared policy of Plaid Cymru, would mean that it would go on and on at the expense of hon. Members representing English constituencies.
I am ready to fight for my constituency if there is a genuine need, and I am ready to fight for those areas of Wales where there may be a need. But it is an extraordinary and repellent sense of priorities that it should be determined on anything but need and on the belief that some ethnic group or nation exists or that somebody happens to live in a particular place behind an ancient boundary. It is contrary to anything I understand as a Socialist that we should base need on national, mystic considerations rather than on genuine personal requirements.
There are other consequences that affect Wales. It means that local government would be gobbled up by an Assembly. The Secretary of State for Wales has made it clear that the first


job to which the Assembly would be assigned would be the area of local government. Perhaps it is not quite right to say that that would be the first task. The first task would be for the Assembly to decide its Members' salaries. Never has there been a situation in which we as a Parliament were creating another body and giving that body, as the Bill shows, full powers to decide its own salaries and pensions, with no check whatever from this House of Commons or anybody else. All we shall rely on is the conscience of the newly-elected, untried, untested Assembly.
I repeat that I was wrong to say that local government would be the Assembly's first task. It is bound to be its third task. Its second task would be to appoint the civil servants and clerks who would serve it. I hope the Committee appreciates what that involves. According to the White Paper and statements made by the Secretary of State for Wales, an extra 1,300 jobs would be created. The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) spoke of the jobs to be created. The Assembly would have power to create jobs for the boys—jobs for the bureaucrats. It would not involve only 1,000-odd civil servants. That is all part of the fallacy.
The Bill gives other powers to the Assembly. The Secretary of State has said that he hopes that the Welsh Assembly will share its civil servants with Whitehall and the Welsh Office. What a hope! Can one really believe for a moment that an Assembly, if it had any self-respect—

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Scotland and Wales Bill and the motions relating to House of Commons (Services) may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Coleman.]

SCOTLAND AND WALES BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Abse: I was about to say that the second act of the Welsh Assembly would be to create its Civil Service. There has been a serious under-estimation of the number of civil servants that would be needed. The estimation was based on the assumption that the only civil servants would be those shared with Whitehall and the Welsh Office. But the Welsh Assembly is bound to want its own civil servants, not just out of prestigiousness and a whim, but because the Assembly will know that it will have to engage in battles—at least annually—with Whitehall in order to get money. There would be an intolerable conflict of interest, as the Kilbrandon Report points out, if the Assembly did not have a separate Civil Service.
It must be frankly acknowledged, as the Secretary of State for Wales has said frequently, "That is the cost of democracy". But people must be told that if this is what Wales is going to do, there are bound to be literally thousands of additional civil servants.
The third task of the Assembly would be to gather powers. The Assembly would devour existing local authorities. The Secretary of State for Wales has announced that he would expect the Assembly to review local government in Wales. That may not be an exciting subject for hon. Members who represent English constituencies, but they ought to know enough of the sensitivity of local authorities in their areas to understand that there naturally has been a serious reaction from all local authorities who find that a body is being created that will feed upon them and take their powers.
It has rightly been pointed out that planning responsibility could be taken from an authority in a distant part of Wales and concentrated in the Assembly in the capital. So it could come about, presumably, that the whole existing structure would ultimately be changed. In the meantime, our little Wales, with its small population, would be absolutely and ridiculously over-governed. If there must be cuts in local government and if there is to be an Assembly, any rational government would first try to put right what the Tories made wrong—that is, the reorganisation of local government in Wales—and then to give consideration to an Assembly—not to create an


Assembly to act as a devourer of all existing authorities.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: My hon. Friend may wish to remind the Committee that any legislation to reform local government in Wales would be a matter for the House of Commons.

Mr. Abse: Of course it would be, but is it seriously believed that, if the Welsh Assembly were determined to decide a scheme of local government, the House of Commons would get involved in a stand-up confrontation over those proposals? Of course it would not. By putting forward such a weak argument, my right hon. Friend reveals how much power is going to the Assembly and how residual will be the power left here.
I have been dealing with what I have seen as matters affecting hon. Members other than Welsh Members, but I cannot forbear, when I am aware of the attention being directed to this matter in the Principality, from turning to matters which some hon. Members may regard as the trivia of my contribution, but which, in Wales, may be regarded as the substance.
There have been a number of references to the advertisement in the Western Mail which demands that under no circumstances should we do anything but vote for the Government on this amendment. The advertisement has been read in detail and contains 600 or 700 names. As was confirmed earlier, the list includes the names of some people who gave no authority for their names to be used. The principal of a university says that the organisers had no right to use his name. One of the most distinguished Labour council leaders has said that his name should not be in the advertisement and we can see that, in order to swell the list, the name of one bishop apppears twice.
A motley crew has been gathered together. We see some of the people in the Liberal Party whom we call professional Welshmen joining with Communists, who are well known in their own areas, to say that Parliament must let Wales decide.
An extraordinary feature of almost all the people on the list is that they were as opposed to a referendum as was the Secretary of State, and no one could

have been more opposed than he. Throughout Wales he insisted that there must not, could not, and should not, be a referendum. On what by-way or lane, on the way to which little Welsh Damascus did the conversion take place?
Perhaps I should be fair to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport and say that no one was more passionately opposed to a referendum than he. But suddenly all these opponents of a referendum found an enthusiasm which excelled that of my hon. Friends the Members for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans), for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), Bedwellty and myself who took the initiative and managed to secure a referendum. When I am considering what I have to do about the amendment, I cannot be expected, except in one particular, to pay much weight to what comes from those firm opponents of a referendum now pleading that they should have one.
The point which, in one particular, begins to make me feel that perhaps I should vote for the amendment is that this highly publicised advertisement says:
The need for a DIRECTLY ELECTED WELSH ASSEMBLY and the expectation that has been built up over the last ten years has reached a point where any frustration of the aspiration would dangerously threaten social harmony in Wales and relationships in Britain as a whole.
Hon. Members know threats when they see them. When I am sometimes asked not to be intemperate when I speak in Wales, my reply is that of course I shall be intemperate about matters which concern Wales and are disadvantageous to my constituency. But I shall not be an inciter of violence, and I shall not pretend and affect to be so concerned as to what happens as to suggest that, whatever may be the results, violence in our peaceful Wales would come about. I am bound to say that, knowing as I do that in Wales or elsewhere there are inevitably irresponsible minorities.

Mr. Anderson: Is my hon. Friend aware that, certainly in my constituency, it is not the barricades but the flags that will go up if the amendment is carried?

Mr. Abse: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East speaks for Swansea as I speak for Ponty-pool, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport does not speak for his constituency.

Mr. Roy Hughes: The vast difference between my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) and myself is that while we both made promises, following endless meetings of the Welsh Labour Group before the General Elections of 1974, when it was unanimously agreed that the call for a Welsh Assembly should be inserted in the Labour Party manifesto, I have honoured my obligations while he has not done so.

Mr. Abse: When the claim is made, as it is by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, that what I and others are now not wanting to do—and I mean those who take my view of the Welsh Labour movement—is contrary to the manifesto, I am bound to say, as I have said elsewhere, that perhaps some of my hon. Friends will agree with me that there are some other matters in the manifesto which perhaps the Government have not been able to deliver. On no occasion in the last General Election was I even asked in Pontypool by anyone about devolution. On the previous occasion I was asked only once. The truth of the matter is that when people say that this was sold to the electorate—

Mr. Roy Hughes: rose—

Mr. Abse: My hon. Friend—

The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order.

Mr. Roy Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. In view of the fact—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I rose to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that two hon. Members were on their feet at the same time but that the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) had the Floor.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Will my hon. Friend now give way, please?

Mr. Abse: Very well, but I should tell my hon. Friend before I do so that this is the last occasion.

Mr. Roy Hughes: I wanted to draw my hon. Friend's attention, on the question of the promise made in the General Election manifestos of the Labour Party in both General Elections of 1974, to the fact that before our promise was inserted there were endless meetings of the Welsh

Labour Group and eventually, on 6th November 1973, the group took a unanimous decision.
Twenty-six out of 27 Members were present, including my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), and my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans). A unanimous agreement was reached on the need for the creation of a strong Welsh Assembly. I stood by that decision which was freely given. I still do and I shall do so in the vote this evening.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Abse: When people say that it was in the manifesto and was sold as such to the electorate of Wales, I am reminded of the cheap huckster who goes to the door and, having presented a contract for sale, carefully conceals by leger demain the small print. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport knows full well that the issue was not discussed in the constituencies of Wales.
I regret that the threats issued against me by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport—my neighbour and comrade—on Second Reading were inevitably reported in the local newspaper that he and I share in our constituencies. In the face of those threats, and in the light of my hon. Friend's provocations contained in the extravagant attacks upon myself and other Labour Members, particularly in Gwent, there is a considerable temptation to respond in the way that I am sure the overwhelming majority of the citizens in the proud town of Newport would wish.
I have been deluged with letters from Newport. Nearly all of them were from Labour supporters declaring their total distaste for the Bill. I am not surprised.

Mr. Roy Hughes: rose—

Mr. Abse: No, I shall not give way.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mr. Abse: My hon. Friend the Member for Newport did not have the courtesy to give me notice of the highly personalised attack that he launched upon me on Second Reading. I need hardly say that he had full knowledge that I was going to speak.

Mr. Roy Hughes: rose—

Mr. Abse: No, I am not giving way.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. If the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) is hoping to catch the eye of the Chair, he is not performing particularly wisely at the moment.

Mr. Roy Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. Surely it is against the traditions of the House of Commons for personal insinuations to be made but for no avenue to be given for reply.

The Second Deputy Chairman: That is not a point of order for me. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can make an effort to catch my eye at some subsequent time.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Abse: No, I shall not. The Committee may understand that the referendum campaign has begun.

Mr. Roy Hughes: rose—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must contain himself.

Mr. Abse: I am not surprised that so many people in Newport, fearing, as they must. The ultimate—

Mr. Roy Hughes: rose—

Mr. Abse: No, I am not giving way.

Mr. Roy Hughes: rose—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I have already advised the hon. Member for Newport on at least three occasions that only one hon. Member may be on his feet at one time.

Mr. Abse: I am grateful for your protection, Mr. Godman Irvine.
I am not so surprised that so many people in Newport realise that the ultimate consequences of the Bill would be to reduce Newport to a frontier town hemmed in by a stockade of English prejudice and dominated from Cardiff by a Welsh-speaking bureaucratic elite and a veritable army of civil servants. What does not surprise me is the action of the people of Newport, who have written to me dissociating themselves from the views of their own Member of Parliament and the rather uncharacteristic insensi-

tivity that he displays towards his constituents for whom, I acknowledge, he normally fights so bravely.
Like me and like my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport has the privilege of being a member of a great trade union, the Transport and General Workers Union, although he has an advantage over me in that before coming to the House of Commons he was an official of that union. But I suspect that, since I was originally a member of the union, long before I became a solicitor, when I worked in a factory in pre-war years, my length of membership may be longer than his. To his constituency party, as is his right, he receives a substantial subvention from that union, which I do not. But I am sure that—

Mr. Roy Hughes: On a point of order. Mr. Godman Irvine. Seeing that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool is insinuating that I have actually been in receipt of money from the T & GWU, I should like it to be clear to the Committee that, although I was an official of that union for some years before coming to the House, I have never received a penny personally from that union.

Mr. Abse: I did not intend to make any suggestion of that kind. I spoke of my hon. Friend's constituency party. I said that he was a sponsored Member. That is his right, as I made clear. But I am sure that the very distinguished and able Welsh area secretary of his union, who is also secretary of the Wales TUC and who, since he came from the Midlands, has contributed so much to Wales, even though he is an enthusiastic devolutionist, would not expect my hon. Friend the Member for Newport to treat the Newport electorate like a branch of the Transport and General Workers Union.
I respect the views of some of the officials of that great union. That is one matter and one which those of us who have the privilege of being union members must take into account in our decisions. But to follow them slavishly is quite another matter, and I believe that the confusion in the attitude of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport arises because—

Mr. Heffer: Will my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) please


desist from these unnecessary attacks on other hon. Members, because they are sponsored or otherwise, and keep to the argument about devolution? I am a sponsored Member and, frankly, it would not matter whether my union had taken one view or another; I should act according to my conscience. I know that other hon. Members would do likewise. I ask my hon. Friend not to continue that type of argument.

Mr. Abse: I am certain that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) would act in that way. I am asking why it is that my hon. Friend representing a town like Newport indulged in this extraordinary series of attacks on myself in the House on Second Reading. I have made my attitude clear in my constituency and in the local Press, and my hon. Friend the Member for Newport must learn that the fact that I ignored his attacks on Second Reading does not allow him to assume that those who fight against the Bill should be referred to the Race Relations Board, as he has suggested I should be. He must not believe that he can bully me any more than I can be blackmailed by the type of advertisement to which I have referred.
I have attempted to deal with the major issues and some of those on the periphery, and I now come to my con-

clusion and decision. I understand the position of my hon. Friends the Members for Bedwellty and for Swansea, East, who have indicated their dilemma quite frankly. They are in some difficulty, as I am, because, having fought to get a referendum, they do not want to be taunted by the accusation that they have then sought to deprive the people of Wales of that referendum by voting for the amendment. They are throwing themselves on the good offices of the Secretary of State for Wales in the belief that in the referendum, if it comes, they will not be accused, because they voted with the Government, of having, in fact, agreed with and shown by their votes that they supported the Bill when they have made it abundantly clear that they do not.
Knowing the polemics of Welsh debates and the dissonances which will grow in a Wales which feels passionately about both sides of the argument, I believe that they may be hostages to fortune, although I respect their motives. I cannot bring myself to take an action which could be interpreted as if I were supporting a Bill which I abhorred. It is a Bill which, I believe, is contrary to the interests of my constituents and affronts what I believe to be my democratic Socialist principles. Because of that, the Government will not find me in the Lobby with them this evening.

Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) has covered most of the issues which have been discussed in this debate and I shall do my best to reply to the arguments which he has presented, and which have been raised by many other hon. Members as well. If I concentrate in the main on what my hon. Friend has said, I do not believe that other hon. Members will think that this is a departure from the proper rules of debate, because he has covered most of the arguments.
My hon. Friend argued at the beginning of his remarks—and he has criticised Government spokesmen of alleged delinquency on a number of occasions—that not merely was it wrong to have Wales and Scotland dealt with in the same Bill but that spokesmen of the Government have never come forward and stated the reasons why the two countries should be dealt with in the same Bill. I have my responsibility along with other members of the Government in that respect. One of the first propositions I had to face when I succeeded my predecessor in this office was the question of how to proceed with this Bill. A number of questions had to be decided, and one of them was whether we should deal with devolution in two Bills or in one.
10.30 p.m.
I believed, on the merits of the matter, that it was better to have one Bill. Although there were to be different proposals for dealing with Scotland and Wales, it was still the same subject. It was devolution that had to be settled, with devolved powers to the new Assemblies to be established in Edinburgh and Cardiff. As the proposition was to deal with devolved powers in both cases, it was logical that the matter should be dealt with in the same Bill.
If we had decided on two Bills, some would have argued that the Scottish Bill should take precedence and be introduced first. The Welsh Bill would have had to wait for a considerable period. It might even be difficult to envisage introducing it this Session. That would have been an indication to the people of Wales that we were giving a secondary place to what was proposed for Wales, and the possibility of carrying forward the proposition for Wales which we were

pledged to do in our election manifesto would fade from the picture in this Parliament.
Had we decided to have two Bills and to postpone the Welsh Bill possibly until the next Session, nobody would have been more pleased than my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool, who is opposed to any devolution for Wales. That consideration also weighed with us. Many people in Wales who are passionately opposed to any form of devolution would have welcomed the postponement of proposals for Wales. We were determined to prove to the people of Wales our good faith and determination to carry this matter forward as strongly as we could.
I shall not go into the arguments which have broken out between my hon. Friends the Members for Newport (Mr. Hughes) and for Pontypool but shall put the matter as unpejoratively as possible. We recognise the origin of the proposals. However much my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool may say that we should take little account of the discussions within the Welsh Parliamentary Labour Party prior to the February 1974 election, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Newport gave a perfectly accurate account, and that they should be set on one side as a matter of no significance, it is a matter which we who attach great importance to those discussions should take into account.
It was on the basis of those disscusions and our interpretation of the Kilbrandon recommendations that we went forward and put our proposals to the people of Wales. The fact that few questions were asked in Pontypool, Newport or elsewhere on these matters during the General Election campaign does not alter the fact that our commitment was absolutely clear. We had to take into account all these questions when we considered whether to have one Bill or two.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many Labour Members who abstained on Second Reading are prepared to accept that the Government may have got the matter right and interpreted the feelings of the people of Wales correctly but believe that until we have a referendum we shall not know? Many


of us are not prepared to support any changes or to support the Government's proposals in the Bill until there has been a referendum that will give us the opportunity of determining what the people of Wales and Scotland want. Until we have had such a referendum, it will be impossible for us to support the Government's proposals. Does my right hon. Friend recognise that some of us will support the Government tonight to ensure that there is such a referendum but that apart from that there is no support for the proposals?

Mr. Foot: I am glad to hear that my hon. Friend will support the Government tonight. He has made one of the best speeches I have heard from the Labour Benches today. I believe that he has put forward a good reason for supporting the Government. If the amendments were carried, any possibility of a referendum for Wales would be made almost impossible. It would mean that Wales would be removed from the Bill altogether and that it could be dealt with only by a separate and different Bill.
I have already given some of the reasons that led me and the Government to believe that it was right to deal with these matters as the Government propose.

Mr. Heffer: I return for a brief moment to the commitment of the Labour Party. My right hon. Friend is right to say that there were discussions among the Welsh Labour Members and the Welsh Labour Party, but it is not true that the question of Assemblies for Wales and Scotland, which may well have appeared in the Welsh manifesto, appeared in the manifesto on which Members such as myself fought. The issue was not in the Labour Party manifesto which covered the whole of Britain.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Perhaps my hon. Friend will read the document that I now hand to him.

Mr. Heffer: It was not in the February election manifesto. I know that it was not in it. It is no good handing me documents, because I know that it was not in it. Is it not the fact that it appeared in the autumn election manifesto just prior to the election and that it had

never been discussed or voted upon at the Labour Party Conference?

Mr. Foot: I understand my hon. Friend's argument. I have heard him present it before. It does not alter the fact that when we fought the General Election in October 1974 our commitment in respect of Scotland and Wales was quite clear.
In fact, I was arguing a slightly different matter. I was replying to the debate and the first point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool. I was arguing—I believe it is a legitimate argument—that over and above the other arguments one of the reasons for our believing that it was right that there should be no delay in the proposal for Wales, that there should be no subordination of the proposal for Wales, no such delay as might have jeopardised the proposition altogether, was that we Welsh Members were deeply committed not only by the October 1974 commitment but by the February commitment and by all the discussions that had taken place between the Welsh Labour Party and the people of Wales. I believe that we were entitled to take all these matters into account.
I turn to the second argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool. My hon. Friend insists that in some way by these proposals we are undermining the supremacy of Parliament. On a number of occasions in discussing the Welsh proposals—they are the chief matters under consideration in the amendments—my hon. Friend has insisted that 50 per cent. of the business, the occupation, the requirements and the duties of Members for Wales will be transferred to Cardiff. I believe that that is a considerable exaggeration. Whatever may be the percentage of work that is transferred—I do not believe that the amount can be precisely stated, but there are good reasons for transferring it—the fact is that the supremacy of Parliament is sustained in both Wales and Scotland.
One of the central features of this legislation is that we should retain supreme control in the House of Commons over what eventually happens in Scotland and in Wales. Whatever powers may be devolved, that supremacy should be retained here.
It is true, as my hon. Friend kindly acknowledged, that I have always argued in favour of sustaining the sovereign power of the House of Commons. The Common Market legislation infringed that sovereignty, as Members on both sides are willing to acknowledge and as has been revealed in discussions which have taken place on a number of occasions on that legislation. In this legislation, however, the supremacy of the House of Commons is retained. I believe that that is the right course for us to follow.

Mr. Kinnock: My right hon. Friend has used the analogy of the Common Market legislation. Was it not the case that he and I and others who shared and still share the same opinion about the Common Market feared that, in the event of Britain trying to assert its interest in a particular subject, the Common Market authorities would be in a position to overrule it? In the referendum, did we not suggest the possibility of dictation from Brussels? Therefore, in the relationship between the Cardiff Assembly and the Westminster Parliament—or London Government, as the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) continued to call it—will not the people of Wales consider the proper assertion of the supremacy of Parliament to be the kind of overweaning dictatorship that we feared would be and is now received from Brussels?

Mr. Foot: I do not think so. We are stating and making this matter clear from the start. Indeed, in Clause 1 of the Bill we underline and insist on this matter all the more. Therefore, the argument is very different.
It is true, as I have said—I do not believe anybody can deny it—that the Common Market legislation, carried for reasons which hon. Members know and eventually accepted by the country in the referendum, involved a deliberate reduction in the supremacy of the House of Commons. However, in this legislation—we may have learned from experience—we are insisting on maintaining the supremacy of this Parliament. It is a great error for anyone, for whatever reason he or she may wish to present in argument, to suggest that we are doing anything else, because that would be to mislead people about a central feature of this legislation.

Dr. Phipps: What my right hon. Friend is saying seems to clash completely with Clause 18(2), which, under the heading "Legislation by Scottish Assembly", provides that
A Scottish Assembly may amend or repeal a provision made by or under an Act of Parliament.

Mr. Foot: It is only in devolved areas that that can happen. We have not yet reached Clause 18. I am sure that we shall move towards it in the next day or so. When we reach that clause we shall be able to examine that aspect further. I assure my hon. Friend, who I know will be the first to be gratified that this doubt is removed, that the supremacy of this Parliament is sustained by the Bill. Indeed, that is one of its central features.

Mr. Tom Ellis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the practical answer to the argument adduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), who seemed to work himself up into a fury at the idea that the proposed Welsh Assembly, rather than the House of Commons, might reorganise local government in Wales, is that it might make a better job of it?

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Foot: It will make a good job of many of the matters that are devolved to it. I am dealing with the argument of those who claim that we propose to undermine the supremacy of this House of Commons. I say, and the Bill insists on it, that that shall not be the case.
The third base on which my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool rests a considerable part of his attack is that when the Welsh Assembly is established one of its first tasks will be to review local government in Wales and to make recommendations for dealing with it. My hon. Friend suggests that Wales will be devalued by the new Welsh Assembly. I believe that local government in Wales will be reorganised under the aegis of the Welsh Assembly, and the sooner that happens the better. Indeed, if a Welsh Assembly had been in operation a year or two ago the form of local government that was forced upon the people of Wales would never have been introduced.
Therefore, I say to my hon. Friend and to others who have raised this issue that their arguments cannot be sustained on that ground. They argue that our


proposals will enable the people in Cardiff and Edinburgh to change the existing form or to envisage a new form of local government. That will serve the people of Wales well, as it will serve others who wish to follow that example.
With his characteristic honesty, the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said that he would make a confession to the Committee. His confession went a long way towards destroying much of his argument. He said that the anti-devolutionists acclaimed him in his argument that we are building a great house of cards that will come crashing to the ground. He says that that may happen even before the Bill reaches the statute book. But then he made the peculiar confesion that, if with a few of the cards left over we were to build a little extra attic on to the house of cards for Northern Ireland, he might be able to tolerate the whole edifice—presumably on the ground that it will not fall down.
The right hon. Gentleman is in a peculiar position, but he obviously revealed it to the Committee purposely because he never says anything by accident. He revealed that if we were able to add to the proposals some devolutionary proposals for Northern Ireland, and if we were able to add on an alternation in the representation for Northern Ireland, a different complexion would be put on the argument. He said that he would then be tempted to support the Government's proposals.
I understand the right hon. Gentleman's confusion, because the whole of his logical denunciation of any form of devolution is undermined both by what he and his colleagues are prepared to accept for the future of Northern Ireland and by what they have accepted in the past.
I am no great supporter of Stormont, but at least it can be said that it was no house of cards that came down overnight. It took 50 years to come down. In the case of Northern Ireland there was an idea that devolution would not last so long, but it lasted a long time.
Devolution in Northern Ireland served two purposes. It served the purpose of those who wished to see Northern Ireland retain its unity with the United Kingdom, and it served the purpose of

those who wanted some devolved form of administration and legislation in Northern Ireland.
Those two purposes, which in the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman some-times sound so contradictory and illogical, are not so contradictory after all. In the case of Scotland our legislation seeks to perform the task of securing for the people the two things that I believe they want: that is, better democratic control over their own affairs, and to remain integral members of the United Kingdom. Those two purposes are served in our legislation, just as to some extent that happened in Northern Ireland.
We are asked who is to decide this matter in the end. I come, therefore, to the argument about the referendum. I know that some hon. Members, like the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards), have been opposed throughout to any form of devolution or Assembly for Wales. I understand that. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman signed the proposal for a referendum. I presume that his action was based on high scruple, even though in his speech on Second Reading he recommended some form of referendum.
I do not say that anyone who voted for the referendum has no right to support the hon. Gentleman's amendment, although there would be a case in logic for saying that. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) put it very clearly. He will support the Government tonight, not because he likes the Bill any more than he did before but because he believes that if the amendment were carried the people of Wales would effectively be denied the right to vote on this issue at a referendum. He argues that if that happened it would be deeply injurious to the future of Wales. I agree with him. It would also be deeply injurious to the relationship between Wales and England for generations to come. This question having been raised in Wales and Scotland, it must now be settled. This House has every right to work out the details of what is to be proposed. It must make a decision about that and it must decide what recommendations are to be made in the referendum. We shall have the chance to debate that on a not-very-distant date.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty that these questions of


devolution and the unity of the United Kingdom—the two can continue to go together, and that is the high purpose of the Government in all this legislation—having been raised, they cannot be solved solely in this House of Commons. I do not like referenda as a method of settling things, but I have believed for a long time that that would be the best way of settling this matter.

Mr. Anderson: Will my right hon. Friend indicate since when he has reached the decision that this is not a subject to be decided in the House of Commons?

Mr. Foot: I did not say that it was not a subject to be decided in the House. I have said the opposite on a number of occasions. My hon. Friend should recall our debate on this at the Labour Party Conference. I said then that it would be perfectly proper for the House of Commons to settle this question.
I have listened to the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) more than to those of anyone else. If any credit is to be awarded to hon. Members who have argued persistently for a referendum over a long period, no one has done so more than he. He did so at the Labour Party Conference, and it was in response to his speech that I insisted that we should keep the possibility open.
But, the issue having been raised and carried as far as it has been in our debates, and the Government having agreed to a referendum, if the Committee now took action to prevent any reference to the people of Wales to settle the matter, that would be a course of great danger. It would ensure, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty said, that the issue would not be settled at all.
When the Bill has been carried through to the statute book, as I believe it will be, when it is clear what we are proposing, we have every chance that the people of Wales will see the wisdom and desirability of it and will vote for it. Under our proposals, the final word will be that of the people of Wales. I invite the rest of the Committee to support that proposition, which by implication means defeating the amendment.

Mr. Francis Pym (Cambridgeshire): rose—

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. You will have heard the Lord President say that the referendum proposal will be put forward at a not-very-distant date. May I ask you and your colleagues who have been in the Chair throughout the day, taking into account the many references that there have been to a referendum, to decide whether it is in order or sensible to proceed with the Bill until we know the terms of the referendum? At the moment, we are discussing a blank cheque.

Mr. Pym: This has been a highly significant debate for Wales, of a high level, lightened and enlivened by a rare collection of political contortions and by an increasing degree of revelation about how some of the decisions were taken in the Labour Party about devolution to Wales and particularly about the referendum. I was born and brought up in that part of Wales which has now given rise to such differences between the hon. Members for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) and for Newport (Mr. Hughes).
Anyone who had listened to the debate and the devastating criticisms of the Bill delivered from all quarters would be justified in concluding that the Committee intended to pass the amendment. The Secretary of State for Wales in no way answered the criticisms of my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) or others who spoke before the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
I have listened to almost the whole of the debate, missing only one and a half speeches, and I know that there have been only three speeches in favour of the Bill. One was from the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes), who occupies a particular place in his party in the House; the second, which I unfortunately missed, was from the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins), who, I believe, made the rather surprising assertion that the arts in Wales would receive more finance from a devolved Assembly; and the third was from the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans), who might be said to have an interest in the Bill.
Every other speech was against the Bill. Of course, the Lord President is relieved to know that he will get the votes of the hon. Members for Swansea, East (Mr.


Anderson) and for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). The Committee will notice that it seems that they will not do with their feet what their voices suggested they would do.
11.0 p.m.
From the start, the Conservative Party has consistently opposed the idea of an Assembly for Wales such as is suggested in the Bill. That is the reason for the amendment. It is unnecessary to set up the Assembly. It will be expensive. It will certainly not lead to a better form of government, and it will not endure. The hon. Member for Swansea, East was right when he said that the Bill had within it a certain dynamic. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) said that the Bill would lead to confusion, and almost every speech has indicated that this is so.
We are totally against the Bill as far as it affects Wales. We do not believe that it will be of real benefit to Wales or the people of Wales. It could begin a process that could prove disastrous to Wales. The evidence so far suggests that it is not wanted by more than a minority of people —perhaps about one-quarter—but that is not certain. That is why we tabled this amendment.
We have said all the way through that Wales should have been dealt with in a separate Bill. Much has been made of this point in the debate. The right hon. Member for Anglesey said that the argument for two Bills was based on expediency rather than principle, but that is absolutely incorrect and contradicts the representations that we received early in the 1970s from the then Opposition in relation to the Local Government Bill.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) also said that there should be two Bills. I am certain that by combining Scotland and Wales in one Bill we are bound to get bad legislation if the Bill emerges from the House in anything like its present form. We are dealing with two different parts of the United Kingdom where the circumstances are entirely different, the legal systems are entirely different, and the needs and aspirations of the people are entirely different. How can it possibly be sensible to combine them in one Bill? The burden on the House will be un-

reasonable. It will not be the fault of Parliament if we run into difficulties in passing the Bill. The Lord President of the Council has said that the devolution issue ought to be settled, but if the Bill becomes an Act it will certainly not settle the devolution question because it has within it such a degree of instability that the whole will not endure.
I return to the arguments over the referendum, which got Labour Members into a muddle. The Secretary of State for Wales turned a somersault on the referendum issue. Having annoyed some of his hon. Friends in an earlier period by referring to them as "referendum boyos", as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans), he turned a somersault and came down in favour of a referendum.
Parliament must decide what, if any, degree of devolution it is prepared—or can agree—to offer. I know that there are people in Wales who would like a referendum now in order to demonstrate their opposition to devolution, but until we know what this Parliament has to offer there is no clear alternative to put to the people of Wales. I see no merit in holding a referendum for the sake of it and no merit in having what I would call a pre-legislation consultative referendum, because the issues that could be put before the people are to vague to be useful.
We all understand the campaign for independence conducted by Plaid Cymru, because that is the objective of that party but Plaid Cymru Members refer briefly, if ever, to the cost of what independence would mean for Wales or to the full implications. The campaign by the Government so far has been misleading, to say the least, and the hon. Member for Bedwellty described it as a form of misrepresentation. I agree with that. We know that there is a high degree of party political motivation behind the Bill.
I do not think that the Government have so far taken any steps to ascertain the real views of people in Wales. For the Lord President of the Council to say that devolution was included in the Labour Party's manifesto and that few people asked questions about it during the General Election campaign does not seem to be a very good way of finding out what the people of Wales think. What we know is that the Labour Party is


deeply divided on the issue. That has been shown throughout the debate.
It is clear that the Government hope that something like the Bill will become an Act, and I am worried that during its passage and subsequently they will put their propaganda machine into top gear to try to persuade the people of Wales that this form of government will he of great benefit to them and that their lives will improve under it. I only hope that the opposition of the people of Wales to this proposition will be maintained throughout that sustained propaganda campaign.
The Bill might lead to federalism, which I do not believe is wanted. It will certainly lead to further changes. Very few people understand the implications of this complicated measure. Emotions are being played upon to excite people to think that it is a wonderful solution to their difficulties when in reality we are talking about people's prosperity and happiness and when jobs are at stake.
It has been said that the Bill in no way touches the major economic matters affecting Wales. It seems very attractive to talk about a Welsh Government and devolution for Wales. There is no doubt that government for Wales can be improved, but the Bill will not do that. It will change it, but not for the better.
The Conservative Party strongly strongly supports the principle of our Present system of government, because it is not divisive of the union of the United Kingdom. We are convinced that a development of our existing system would be far better. Wales has benefited from the Members representing Welsh constituencies at Westminster. The way in which the Bill reduces their rôle and responsibility is a positive disadvantage to Wales.
The Assembly will claim to speak for Wales in place of the Members of Parliament at Westminster. I cannot think that that is a sound or sensible change. The advertisement of which we have heard so much positively speaks in one paragraph of the directly-elected Welsh Assembly, answerable to the people of Wales. It says that they will feel that the Assembly—not their Members of Parliament —is the forum to which they should declare their wishes. That is a great mistake.
The Assembly will want more and more powers. It will want to take more and more powers from the House of Commons and from local government. I believe that it will have the effect of taking government further away from people rather than the reverse. What my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) said on this point was absolutely right.
During the opening speeches on the Loyal Address at the beginning of this Session, the Prime Minister talked about the Bill bringing government nearer to the people. I do not believe that it will have that effect. That is another major source of criticism.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that his arguments against the Bill in its relation to Wales are equally applicable to Scotland? In that case, why did the Opposition Front Bench not vote for excluding Scotland?

Mr. Pym: The answer is simple. The circumstances in the two countries are different. We have taken a different view about Scotland and Wales for reasons I adduced on an earlier occasion. It is entirely wrong to try to treat them on the same basis in one Bill.
What is the gain in having two Governments for Wales, one in Cardiff and one in London, the Government in Cardiff having to carry out the decisions of the one in London, whether or not they agree with them? It will be a source of constant complaint and misery to have primary legislation carried through here and secondary legislation in Cardiff. Added to that, there will be 1,300 extra civil servants who would not be needed if the Bill did not go through.
None of this will bring additional prosperity or employment. I very much regret that the expectations of the people of Wales have been raised so high. The advertisement which has been mentioned today indicates this when it mentions expectations which have been built up over the last 10 years and which, if frustrated. will have serious consequences. It was a great error to raise expectations in this way and to produce a Bill such as this, because we all know that it cannot fulfil those expectations. That is a reprehensible way in which to conduct the government of the United Kingdom.
I am concerned about differences between North, Mid and South Wales. If they are to be treated as one, it will have serious economic consequences for Wales. The interests of North Wales are more closely linked with Merseyside than with South Wales, and the interests of Mid-Wales are in many respects closer economically to the Midlands. Therefore, we must examine the possible consequences. I am concerned about the fact that inadequate consideration has been given to that aspect of the matter.

Mr. Eric Ogden: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Merseyside. There may be a danger of co-operation between Merseyside and North Wales being lessened by the Bill, but will he recognise that the danger is known and that Members from North Wales and Merseyside, and certainly local authorities in both areas, are determined to work hard to make sure that, despite any changes brought about by the Bill, economic and social co-operation will in no way be diminished?

Mr. Pym: It would be nice if that were so. Indeed, it would be marvellous if the Bill were to make no difference. I gathered from the speech of the Lord President of the Council that final decisions would always be taken here in the House of Commons. That seemed to me to be contrary to the views of Mem-

bers who spoke in favour of devolution for Wales.

There is a great deal of confusion on these matters. We did not have on Second Reading, we have not had from the Secretary of State for Wales today or from the Lord President tonight, any considered answers to the mass of criticism against the Bill. We have not heard a considered case as to how the Bill will improve government for the people of Wales and better their economic prospects, their happiness or their livelihoods. We believe that this is a totally wrong way to approach any contemplated change of government for the United Kingdom as it affects the people of Wales.

Having heard so many speeches against the Bill from the Government side as well as from this side of the Committee, I hope that in the event the vote will follow the voice and that the Committee will support the amendment and see to it that the Bill does affect the people of Wales as is now intended.

Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 277, Noes 26.

Division No. 33.]
AYES
[11.13 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund


Archer, Peter
Campbell, Ian
Dempsey, James


Armstrong, Ernest
Canavan, Dennis
Doig, Peter


Ashley, Jack
Carmichael, Neil
Dormand, J. D.


Ashton, Joe
Carter, Ray
Duffy, A. E. P.


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Dunn, James A.


Atkinson, Norman
Cartwright, John
Dunnett, Jack


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Eadie, Alex


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Clemitson, Ivor
Edge, Geoff


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Cohen, Stanley
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)


Bates, Alf
Coleman, Donald
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Bean, R. E.
Concannon, J. D.
English, Michael


Beith, A. J.
Conlan, Bernard
Ennals, David


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)


Bidwell, Sydney
Corbett, Robin
Evans, John (Newton)


Bishop, E. S.
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)


Boardman, H.
Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Faulds, Andrew


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Crawford, Douglas
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Cronin, John
Flannery, Martin


Bradley, Tom
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cryer, Bob
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Brotherton, Michael
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Ford, Ben


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Davidson, Arthur
Forrester, John


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)


Buchan, Norman
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Freeson, Reginald


Buchanan, Richard
Deakins, Eric
Freud, Clement


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)




George, Bruce
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Silverman, Julius


Gilbert, Dr John
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Small, William


Ginsburg, David
MacKenzie, Gregor
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Golding, John
Maclennan, Robert
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Gould, Bryan
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Snape, Peter


Gourlay, Harry
McNamara, Kevin
Spriggs, Leslie


Graham, Ted
Madden, Max
Stallard, A. W.


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Magee, Bryan
Steel, Rt Hon David


Grant, John (Islington C)
Mahon, Simon
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Grocott, Bruce
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marks, Kenneth
Stott, Roger


Hardy, Peter
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Strang, Gavin


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Maynard, Miss Joan
Swain, Thomas


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Meacher, Michael
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Hatton, Frank
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Mikardo, Ian
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Henderson, Douglas
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Hooley, Frank
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Hooson, Emlyn
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Thompson, George


Horam, John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Tierney, Sydney


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Moyle, Roland
Tinn, James


Huckfield, Les
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Torney, Tom


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Tuck, Raphael


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Newens, Stanley
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Noble, Mike
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Hunter, Adam
Oakes, Gordon
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Ogden, Eric
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
O'Halloran, Michael
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Orbach, Maurice
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Janner, Greville
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Ward, Michael


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Padley, Walter
Watkins, David


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Park, George
Watkinson, John


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Parry, Robert
Watt, Hamish


John, Brynmor
Pavitt, Laurie
Weetch, Ken


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Pendry, Tom
Weitzman, David


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Penhaligon, David
Wellbeloved, James


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Perry, Ernest
Welsh, Andrew


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Price, William (Rugby)
White, James (Pollok)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Radice, Giles
Whitehead, Phillip


Kaufman, Gerald
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Whitlock, William


Kelley, Richard
Reid, George
Wigley, Dafydd


Kerr, Russell
Richardson, Miss Jo
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Kilfedder, James
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Lambie, David
Robinson, Geoffrey
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Lamborn, Harry
Roderick, Caerwyn
Williams, Sir Thomas


Lamond, James
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Lee, John
Rose, Paul B.
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Lipton, Marcus
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Litterick, Tom
Rowlands, Ted
Woodall, Alec


Loyden, Eddie
Ryman, John
Woof, Robert


Luard, Evan
Sandelson, Neville
Wrigglesworlh, Ian


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Sedgemore, Brian
Young, David (Bolton E)


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)



McCartney, Hugh
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


MacCormick, lain
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Mr. Dayid studdart and.


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Mr. Joseph Harper.


McElhone, Frank
Sillars, James





NOES


Abse, Leo
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Anderson, Donald
Grist, Ian
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Budgen, Nick
Heffer, Eric S.
Skinner, Dennis


Carson, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Tebbit, Norman


Cormack, Patrick
Knight, Mrs Jill
Winterton, Nicholas


Crowder, F. P.
Langford-Holt, Sir John



Dalyell, Tam
Mendelson, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Moonman, Eric
Mr. Neil kinnock. and


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Morgan, Geraint
Dr. Colin Phipps.


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Ovenden, John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 263, Noes 287.

Division No, 34.]
AYES
[11.26 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Aitken, Jonathan
Glyn, Dr Alan
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Alison, Michael
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Mills, Peter


Arnold, Tom
Goodhart, Philip
Miscampbell, Norman


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Goodhew, Victor
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Awdry, Daniel
Goodlad, Alastair
Moate, Roger


Baker, Kenneth
Gorst, John
Molyneaux, James


Banks, Robert
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Monro, Hector


Bell, Ronald
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Montgomery, Fergus


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Moonman, Eric


Benyon, W.
Gray, Hamish
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Griffiths, Eldon
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Biffen, John
Grist, Ian
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Biggs-Davison, John
Grylls, Michael
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Blaker, Peter
Hall, Sir John
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Body, Richard
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mudd, David


Bottomley, Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith
Neave, Airey


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Hannam, John
Nelson, Anthony


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Neubert, Michael


Bradford, Rev Robert
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Newton, Tony


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hastings, Stephen
Normanton, Tom


Brittan, Leon
Havers, Sir Michael
Nott, John


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Hawkins, Paul
Onslow, Cranley


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hayhoe, Barney
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Bryan, Sir Paul
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Osborn, John


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Heseltine, Michael
Page, John (Harrow West)


Buck, Antony
Hicks, Robert
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Budgen, Nick
Higgins, Terence L.
Page, Richard (Workington)


Bulmer, Esmond
Hodgson, Robin
Paisley, Rev Ian


Burden, F. A.
Holland, Philip
Parkinson, Cecil


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hordern, Peter
Pattie, Geoffrey


Carlisle, Mark
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Percival, Ian


Carson, John
Howell, David (Guildford)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Phipps, Dr Colin


Channon, Paul
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Pink, R. Bonner


Clark, Alan (Plymouth Sutton)
Hurd, Douglas
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Clegg, Walter
James, David
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Cockcroft, John
Jessel, Toby
Raison, Timothy


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Rathbone, Tim


Cope, John
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Cordle, John H.
Jopling, Michael
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Cormack, Patrick
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Kelth
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Corrie, John
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Crouch, David
Kershaw, Anthony
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Crowder, F. P.
Kimball, Marcus
Rhodes James, R.


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Dalyell, Tam
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Ridsdale, Julian


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Knight, Mrs Jill
Rifkind, Malcolm


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Knox, David
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lamont, Norman
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Drayson, Burnaby
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Durant, Tony
Lawrence, Ivan
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lawson, Nigel
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Royle, Sir Anthony


Elliott, Sir William
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sainsbury, Tim


Emery, Peter
Lloyd, Ian
St. John Stevas, Norman


Eyre, Reginald
Loveridge, John
Scott, Nicholas


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Luce, Richard
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Fairgrieve, Russell
McCrindle, Robert
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Farr, John
McCusker, H.
Shepherd, Colin


Fell, Anthony
Macfarlane, Neil
Shersby, Michael


Finsberg, Geoffrey
MacGregor, John
Silvester, Fred


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Sims, Roger


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Sinclair, Sir George


Fookes, Miss Janet
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Forman, Nigel
Madel, David
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Speed, Keith


Fox, Marcus
Marten, Neil
Spence, John


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Mates, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Fry, Peter
Mather, Carol
Sproat, Iain


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Stainton, Keith


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mawby, Ray
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stanley, John


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Mayhew, Patrick
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)




Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Weatherill, Bernard.


Stokes, John
Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Wiggin, Jerry


Stradling Thomas, J.
Viggers, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Tapsell, Peter
Wakeham, John
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Young. Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Tebbit, Norman
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
Younger, Hon George


Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek



Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Wall, Patrick
TELLERS: FOR THE AYES:


Townsend, Cyril D.
Walters, Dennis
Mr. Spencer La Marchant and


Trotter, Neville
Warren, Kenneth
Mr. Michael Roberts




NOES


Allaun, Frank
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Kinnock, Neil


Anderson, Donald
English, Michael
Lambie, David


Archer, Peter
Ennals, David
Lamborn, Harry


Armstrong, Ernest
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Lamond, James


Ashley, Jack
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Ashton, Joe
Evans, John (Newton)
Lee, John


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Lester, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Atkinson, Norman
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Faulds, Andrew
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Lipton, Marcus


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Flannery, Martin
Litterick, Tom


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Loyden, Eddie


Bates, Alf
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Luard, Evan


Bean, R. E.
Ford, Ben
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Beith, A. J.
Forrester, John
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
McCartney, Hugh


Bidwell, Sydney
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
MacCormick, Iain


Bishop, E. S.
Freeson, Reginald
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Freud, Clement
McElhone, Frank


Boardman, H.
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
George, Bruce
MacKenzie, Gregor


Bradley, Tom
Gilbert, Dr John
Maclennan, Robert


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Ginsburg, David
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Golding, John
McNamara, Kevin


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Gould, Bryan
Madden, Max


Buchan, Norman
Gourlay, Harry
Magee, Bryan


Buchanan, Richard
Graham, Ted
Mahon, Simon


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Grant, John (Islington C)
Marks, Kenneth


Campbell, Ian
Grocott, Bruce
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Canavan, Dennis
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Carmichae', Neil
Hardy, Peter
Maynard, Miss Joan


Carter, Ray
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Meacher, Michael


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Cartwright, John
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mikardo, Ian


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Halton, Frank
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Clemitson, Ivor
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol)
Henderson, Douglas
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)


Cohen, Stanley
Hooley, Frank
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Coleman, Donald
Hooson, Emlyn
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Concannon, J. D.
Horam, John
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Conlan, Bernard
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Moyle, Roland


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Corbett, Robin
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Huckfield, Les
Newens, Stanley


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Noble, Mike


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Oakes, Gordon


Crawford, Douglas
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Ogden, Eric


Cronin, John
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
O'Halloran, Michael


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Hunter, Adam
Orbach, Maurice


Cryer, Bob
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Ovenden, John


Davidson, Arthur
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Padley, Walter


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Palmer, Arthur


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Janner, Greville
Park, George


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Parry, Robert


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Pavitt, Laurie


Deakins, Eric
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pendry, Tom


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
John, Brynmor
Penhaligon, David


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Perry, Ernest


Dempsey, James
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Doig, Peter
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Price, William (Rugby)


Dormand, J. D.
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Radice, Giles


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Reid, George


Dunn, James A.
Kaufman, Gerald
Richardson, Miss Jo


Dunnett, Jack
Kelley, Richard
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Eadie, Alex
Kerr, Russell
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Edge, Geoff
Kilfedder, James
Robinson, Geoffrey


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Roderick, Caerwyn







Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Strang, Gavin
Weitzman, David


Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Wellbeloved, James


Rose, Paul B.
Swain, Thomas
Welsh, Andrew


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
White, James (Pollok)


Rowlands, Ted
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Whitehead, Phillip


Ryman, John
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Whitlock, William


Sandelson, Neville
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Wigley, Dafydd


Sedgemore, Brian
Thompson, George
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Tierney, Sydney
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Tinn, James
Williams, Sir Thomas


Sillars, James
Torney, Tom
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Silverman, Julius
Tuck, Raphael
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Skinner, Dennis
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Small, William
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)
Woodall, Alec


Spriggs, Leslie
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Woof, Robert


Stallard, A. W.
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Steel, Rt Hon David
Ward, Michael
Young, David (Bolton E)


Stewart, Rt Hon Donald
Watkins, David



Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Watkinson, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Stoddart, David
Watt, Hamish
Mr. Peter Snape and


Stott, Roger
Weetch, Ken
Mr. Joseph Harper

Question accordingly negatived.


To report Progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]


Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.

PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS (PRINTING)

Ordered,
That the Sixth Report of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) in the last Session of Parliament and the First Report of the Select Committee in this Session be now considered.—[Mr. Frank R. White.]

Report considered accordingly.

11.43 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I beg to move,
That this House doth agree with the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) in the Sixth Report in the last Session of Parliament.
The Sixth Report of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) in the last Session is substantially a House of Commons matter. The technical content is minimal. We have the advantage of the presence of the Minister of State, Civil Service Department, who is in charge of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, to deal with technical matters.
When we come to the second of the two reports, which deals with Hansard, on which I imagine there will be some argument, it would perhaps be for the convenience of the House if I were formally to move the motion which appears on the Order Paper and for the Minister to open the debate, leaving me to respond to the thoughts of the House towards the end of the proceedings.
The Services Committee is the servant of the House. As Chairman of the Sub-Committee which has dealt with this and other matters, I should make clear that this is no party matter, and I do not speak in a party capacity. The Committee was asked to inquire into and recommend upon a further suggestion and some complaints, and the Sub-Committee met almost every week during the Session.
Obviously, the House does not have the time to debate all our reports or recommendations, nor would it wish to do so. We thought, however, that these two motions should receive more than the tacit approval of the House. Hence the opportunity for debate, which has been at our request. We are grateful to the Government for making time for it.
I should mention in passing that from time to time we hold sessions in a Committee Room open to all hon. Members

to come and put their thoughts to us. I want to make it clear that the next one is to be on Thursday of next week in Room 13 between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m., when I shall be there, with the Clerks of the Committee. There will be a reminder on the all-party Whip, and I hope that hon. Members who have matters to raise with us—if they can send them in writing in advance it will be helpful—will come and avail themselves of the opportunity. There will be others.
I believe that it would be for the convenience of the House to take the Sixth Report of the last Session as a separate, minor matter before we enter the debate on Hansard. I should at once state that we believe that, if we have the approval of the House to the Sixth Report, we should save £58,000 in a full year. But, far more important, I believe that we should aim to do something here and now to help relieve the immense burden borne by our overworked printing establishment.
Even today, we have photocopied Amendment Papers and Order Papers because of stoppages at the press. These stoppages are, in the main, due to the immense strains and pressures upon that establishment, which have grown year by year. Before we can make other, better arrangements, about which the Minister will speak in the next debate, I believe that we should make a start now to relieve the pressure on the existing set-up. In the last Session, about 50 per cent. of the Vote bundles of papers arrived here late, and it was to try to avoid that and reduce costs that we were offered three suggestions by the Stationery Office.
One suggestion, which we recommend, was to introduce a cut-off time for the marshalling of amendments to Bills. If the House agrees, there will be a 9 p.m. deadline at the Public Bill Office from Monday to Thursday for amendments to Bills which are to be considered in the two following days. All such amendments tabled before 9 p.m. will be certain of being printed in a marshalled form and delivered next morning. The printers will be able to get on with the job rather than wait, possibly for many more hours, for the House to rise. Further amendments to the same Bills tabled later in the evening will also be published next day, as the House would wish, but not in a marshalled form. The present situation is that all are aimed to be marshalled


and to be tabled up to the rising of the House, which has produced the near-chaos that we have experienced on many occasions.
Amendments to Bill not down for discussion during the following two days should also appear next day. If that proves not to be possible, they will be held over for one day only and no more. This is proposed as an experiment until the end of this Session, saving some £13,000 a year in expenditure but also guaranteeing us a much more steady and reliable service.

Mr. George Cunningham: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what consultation there has been between the Services Committee and either of the two Procedure Committees—it would have to be the sessional one, I presume—on these matters?

Mr. Cooke: My information is that all those who could possibly be involved have been consulted and have assented to this on an experimental basis. If there is dissent from that point of view, it will, no doubt, emerge in the debate.

Mr. George Cunningham: What I want to know is not whether others concerned have been consulted in a general way but whether the Services Committee went to the Procedure Committee and asked it specifically what it thought of it, and, if so, what the answer was.

Mr. Cooke: The answer is that we did not take formal evidence from another Select Committee of the House. We were informed by all the Officers of the House who we believed could possibly be involved, who are in touch with all sections of activity in the House, that this was a reasonable proposition to put before the House.

Mr. George Cunningham: I am not concerned whether it was formal or informal. Did the Services Committee get in touch with the Procedure Committee to see whether it had anything, formally or informally, to say about this matter?

Mr. Cooke: Through our Clerk, who is in touch with the Clerks of all the other Committees of the House, we took the view that this was a reasonable proposal to put to the House.

Mr. George Cunningham: So the answer is "No "?

Mr. Cooke: The hon. Gentleman must interpret my words as he sees fit. I have not sought to hide anything or to fail to give him all the information to hand.

Mr. George Cunningham: Is the answer "Yes" or "No"?

Mr. Cooke: The answer is that we did not formally consult another Select Committee. I thought I had made that clear.

Mr. George Cunningham: Informally?

Mr. Cooke: Informally, inasmuch as every Select Committee is in touch with every other Select Committee on a matter such as this, through our officials.

Mr. George Cunningham: No?

Mr. Cooke: The House must make its own judgment on that point. We may be able to fill in more information as we go along.

Mr. George Cunningham: What a way to carry on!

Mr. Cooke: The second proposal involves the procedure to be followed when names are added to Early-Day Motions. No change is proposed to the present manner of printing the first appearance of the motion. The Stationery Office wanted us to agree to printing only the title of the motion and its single first sponsor when names were added. The House may visualise what that would mean. It would be a very truncated version of what had first appeared.
We felt that we could not agree to that proposal, because all hon. Members would no doubt think it important to know the breadth and flavour of support for a particular Early-Day Motion. Therefore, we recommend that, after the first appearance, we should have the title of the motion together with, as now, up to six of its sponsors' names in full, a cumulative total of the names in support of the motion and—a new helpful suggestion of our own, we hope—the page reference in the Vote so that Members can easily get from the Vote Office the original full text. That is not always easy to do without recourse to the Table Office or to the Library.
The main change that we propose is that the full text of the motion should


not keep appearing unless an amendment is tabled to it. In that event the whole of the motion will have to appear, because the amendment has to refer to the whole text. However, the title will always appear. We suggest that the title could be up to two lines. At present it is usually one line. Under this proposed scheme hon. Members would no doubt be more explicit in writing the titles of motions so that others would know what they were about. Sometimes when tabling a motion a Member tends not to give it a title, so it is written in a hurry by the Table Office and it is not as explicit as it might be.

Mr. Neil Marten: Did the Committee question the Stationery Office's estimate of a saving of £45,000 a year? Did it examine how that saving was arrived at, and was it satisfied with that figure?

Mr. Cooke: We are always careful to examine any figure that is put before us. We were convinced that that was a realistic figure. But we regarded as more important than the sum involved the flow of paper through the presses and convenience to the House as regards delivery on time, for example. The Early-Day Motion proposal could save £45,000 a year and, more importantly, reduce the volume of paper and time to print it and ensure prompt delivery. We recommend this an an experiment for a period lasting up to the end of this Session.
The Stationery Office put forward a third proposal which we rejected. The proposal involved cutting to one name only the supporters of reprinted amendments to a Bill and indicating by a symbol that there were other supporters. I am surprised that that does not produce laughter in the House, but I presume that the lateness of the hour prevents it. The House will know that many subtle permutations can take place—Back Bench with Front Bench support, Back Bench with qualified Front Bench support, Front Bench amendments to which Back Benchers have added no names, and all-party amendments to Bills. It was easy to see that the House would not agree to a proposal of that nature even though it would save money and facilitate printing.
We rejected the proposal and do not recommend the House to follow that line.

Mr. George Cunningham: The Stationery Office is answerable to a Minister. The hon. Member has told us on several points that the Stationery Office put certain proposals to his Committee. Can he tell us whether it put these proposals with the approval of a Minister? Are we to understand that a Minister suggested that it would be a good idea for that last ridiculous and totally unacceptable proposition to be accepted?

Mr. Cooke: The Minister who is present this evening can answer for himself. A Minister would not want to stop officials, who are not as closely attuned to the working of the House as we are, from putting forward various options to facilitate the printing of papers and save money. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) must make his own judgment, but I share his view that that was an unacceptable proposition. However, we examined it, as is our duty.
The Services Committee is the servant of the House and it is not trying to push hon. Members one way or the other. I ask the House to try for an experimental period a cut-off of marshalled amendments to a Bill and a new form for the reprinting of Early-Day Motions. That would result in a better service to the House and nothing would be lost. It would involve a saving of £58,000 in a full year. One hopes that it will not inconvenience the House, but if it proved inconvenient we could, of course, think again. We propose that it should be an experiment until the end of the Session. If the House agrees to it, it will be reasonable to carry on the experiment.
It would not be weak of me to say that if, having agreed to the proposal, we found that hidden snags emerged, it would not be impossible for the Stationery Office to revert to the old form. I recommend that the Sixth Report be approved.

Mr. David Crouch: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance? I am not sure whether we shall have an opportunity of a second debate tonight, on the First Report. If I speak in the debate


on the Sixth Report, do I stand a chance of catching your eye in the debate on the First Report?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): I am happy to say that I shall be leaving the Chair in about 30 seconds. I do not want to bind my successor, who might be within earshot, but I understand that there will be a good opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to obtain the facility he wants with regard to the third motion.

Mr. Tim Renton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understood that we were having two separate debates. The first is on the Sixth Report of the last Session. Subsequently we shall debate the First Report of this Session.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, that is absolutely correct.

12.2 a.m.

Mr. Peter Emery: I wish merely to put one or two questions to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke). I gather that it is suggested that the new size, when we come to debate it, will be a factor in providing savings. Are there any savings from my hon. Friend's suggestions which can be realised only if the new size is adopted? Can the savings be made if we retain the old size? In other words would the savings to be expected from what is proposed be any greater by reason of adopting the larger size?

12.3 a.m.

Mr. David Crouch: I am not sure whether I should address my remarks to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke) or to the Minister, and I am not sure whether the Government have already taken a decision. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I shall address my remarks to my hon. Friend, who gave an extremely clear explanation. It was clear to the extent that it worried me. It is not only we within this cloistered Chamber who use the Order Paper for guidance about our performance. There are people outside who are concerned to know what is going on from day to day and to know how hon. Members are performing.
These proposals, which are put forward by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, would produce savings by bringing production into line with current printing practice. I would not be against having the copy in by 9 o'clock at night. That would be a new discipline which would not inhibit us or make our performance less efficient. That proposal would not affect persons outside.
However, people outside will want to see from the Order Paper, the Order Book or the Vote which hon. Members have lent their names to amendments. They might find that difficult unless they had all the previous papers which gave the full titles of Bills. The sign that might be on the subsequent edition might not be enough, and they might therefore need to have references.
Many business men, trade unionists and lawyers might not have well-ordered offices with a regular supply of parliamentary papers which enable them to find out quickly what is happening. Under this proposal, they will see only the title of an Early-Day Motion and the number of Members supporting it. The title is not much help when a constituent writes to ask one to consider signing such a motion. One has to study the whole motion before knowing whether one can support it.
We shall be able to find out all the detail in the Vote Office and perform our duties efficiently, but I am concerned that the Stationery Office, for its convenience and to save £58,000 of taxpayers' money, has made a suggestion which might lead to a lack of clarity creeping in and to inefficiency among those outside who keep an eye on parliamentary papers.
Many people keep an eye on these matters. They often remind me that I have not seen a motion or noticed how many of my hon. Friends have defied the Whips and signed an amendment on a Bill such as the Scotland and Wales Bill. That is where names are important, and that is why I question whether this suggestion is in the best interests of Parliament serving our constituents.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I have some sympathy with the hon. Member's point of view. Has he considered that after the introduction of radio broadcasting in the not-too-distant future,


Order Papers and the Vote of the House may be in greater demand among the public?

Mr. Crouch: That may be true. Just as the listing of programmes in the Press has largely made the Radio Times irrelevant, so the function of our parliamentary papers, if they are inefficient, may be taken over by the Press.

12.9 a.m.

Mr. Giles Shaw: The cut-off point has been referred to as 9 p.m. The report refers to 9.30 p.m.—[HON. MEMBERS: "No—it is 9 p.m."] I must be looking at the wrong page.
It is claimed that the change in the marshalling of amendments will save £13,000 and that the revised format for the adding of names will save £45,000. Will the major source of this saving be the overtime rates involved in setting or the amounts of paper required?

12.10 a.m.

Mr. George Cunningham: I do not know what we are to do with the House of Commons. The way in which it conducts its business is astonishing. We are discussing matters which are primarily the responsibility of the Services Committee, yet the Chairman of that Committee, who is also the Leader of the House, is not present. He ought to be here, even though he has spent the day dealing with devolution.
My right hon. Friend's absence reinforces the point I have made several times before that the Leader of the House ought not to be Chairman of the Services Committee. At the moment he is busy running the agenda of the House and breaking up the United Kingdom. Those two jobs give him more than enough to get on with, without being bothered about whether the deadline for something should be 9 o'clock, 10 o'clock or the Adjournment of the House.
I am volunteering for the job as Chairman of the Services Committee, and I can promise hon. Members that the place would never be the same again if the House was good enough to appoint me.

Mr. Jim Craigen: That is why my hon. Friend will never get it.

Mr. Cunningham: The House at present has two Procedure Committees. One is engaged in long-term work—it must be very long-term work judging by the progress it has made so far—and the other is more engaged in short-term work.
It is perfectly clear from what was said by the Chairman-depute of the Services Committee that the Committee has not gone to the Sessional Procedure Committee to ask what it thinks. But even if the Services Committee had asked, the Sessional Procedure Committee would have been debarred from making any response. This is because the House unwisely and thoughtlessly approved a Government motion which debars the Sessional Procedure Committee from considering any matters except those referred to it by a motion of the House. This is a fine illustration of what happens when we have such a daft arrangement. Between 1970 and 1974 we had a Procedure Committee to which the House could refer matters but which was not limited to considering matters referred to it by the House. Consequently it could have responded to an inquiry by the Services Committee or anyone else about matters of this kind.
It would, however, have been possible for this matter to have been referred to the sessional Procedure Committee as a result of a motion put on the Order Paper. It would have been the job of the Leader of the House to put that motion on the Order Paper, and since he is also Chairman of the Services Committee there would have been no problem at all. Why has that not happened?
The matters that we are discussing in the Committee's Sixth Report and in the First Report of the present Session are not matters which are exclusively the jurisdiction and concern of the Services Committee. These matters are very procedural in their implications, and if the House of Commons does not ensure that the Services Committee gets the Procedure Committee to look at this point the House of Commons does not know how to run its own business. We all know, of course, that the House of Commons does not know how to run its own business.
I am not prepared to go along with something which gives effect to incompetence of this kind. These are not matters


which ought to be decided by the Services Committee. I would not let the Services Committee decide anything as it is constituted at present. It is led by the Government, it is packed by the Front Benches and it is largely concerned with the buildings.

Mr. Roger Sims: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the Services Committee is not deciding the matter? It is simply making a recommendation and leaving it to the House to decide it, which is surely what the hon. Gentleman wants.

Mr. Cunningham: I entirely agree. The hon. Gentleman is pushing at an open door. No Committee decides anything. but in order to assist the 635 Members in reaching their decision we have the views expressed to us by the Services Committee. But we do not have any views expressed to us by either of the two Committees that the House in its wisdom has set up to consider procedural questions. This is a very procedural matter. Why has not the Services Committee or its Chairman, who is also Leader of the House and, therefore, has the means to do it, had the common sense to have this matter referred to the sessional Procedure Committee? It may have agreed with the Services Committee, but I suggest that it would not be right to allow this motion to pass tonight without receiving first the views of the short-term—that is, the sessional—Procedure Committee upon it.
In case there is any doubt on the point, let me stress again, despite the ambiguity of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke), that the sessional Procedure Committee has not considered this matter, because it could not consider it under the terms of the order passed by the House. But if a motion were put on the Order Paper to refer these reports, or at any rate the Sixth Report of last Session—I am not so sure that the First Report of this Session falls into the same category in this respect—to the sessional Procedure Committee, it would be free to do so.
The sessional Procedure Committee is engaged on mighty procedural questions. It is about to embark on considering whether it is possible to get rid of the comic-opera top hat. We would not

want—at least, I certainly would not—to distract the Committee from directing its attention to that mightly trifle, because I have said before, and I mean it, that if the Procedure Committee does not get rid of that damned hat I shall set fire to it. But it has time to look at the Sixth Report of last Session. There is still time.
The House should never allow little things like this to pass. The House does not run its affairs competently, but to have a procedural-type motion come before us without giving ourselves the benefit of the views of the Procedure Committee that we have set up is just too damned stupid even for the House of Commons.

Mr. Marten: Is not the solution that the motion should be withdrawn, that the consultations with the Procedure Committee that the hon. Gentleman has just proposed should take place, and that the motion should then be brought back to the House? If that is agreed, can we not get on with the next debate?

Mr. Cunningham: If my hon. Friend the Minister and others were prepared to say that they had been persuaded that that should happen, it would not be necessary for any of us to deploy the arguments to that effect. I thought that it would take me till nearly half-past 12 to deploy the arguments to that effect. Certainly, that is the conclusion that I was hoping to be able to come to.
We have here the Chairman-depute of the Services Committee and the Minister in charge of the Civil Service. I am not sure what the procedure of the House has to do with him, but that is the practice of the place. I would have hoped that enough had been said by now to indicate that it would be regarded as rather impudent for anyone to try to press this matter tonight, and that it would be much better if the motion were withdrawn. Important issues are involved.
I am bothered about one of the points on which I intervened a little earlier. When Whitehall officials give evidence before Select Committees, it is an excellent thing that they should not feel bound by ministerial direction and, indeed, they have no such direction. Not only should they not feel bound, but they are not


bound in that if any Committee asks questions as to how money might be saved the civil servants must reply—and God help them if they do not.
When the Civil Service Department or the Stationery Office puts to the Services Committee a proposal that money should be saved by making certain changes, it is odd when those changes are of a nature that would be unacceptable to any Member of Parliament who had any respect for the manner in which this place had to conduct its business.
I hope the Minister in replying to this debate will say what happened in this case. Did the Stationery Office simply respond to an invitation to say how money could be saved, in which case the Minister was not involved at all, or did the Stationery Office make a suggestion that it would be a good idea if the names of the supporters of a Bill did not appear as they do now? If the Stationery Office officials intended to make a proposal of that kind they should have cleared their lines with the Minister, and the Minister should have laughed such a ridiculous notion out of court. The matter should not even have gone to the Services Committee unless the Committee itself took the initiative and asked for proposals.
There are many respects in which we do not organise our Committee affairs very well. The mere fact that we have two Procedure Committees says something about the running of this joint. We also have another Procedure Committee, the Standing Orders Committee, and it should be integrated with one or other of the Procedure Committees. It now seems that we are to have the Services Committee homing in on the matter. It is worth recalling that the Services Committee is not a Committee similar to any of the others. The Services Committee is advisory to Mr. Speaker. Its terms of reference provide that it is to advise Mr. Speaker on the services in the part of the House for which it is responsible, or something of that nature.
I am not sure how the Services Committee gets into this question—and, indeed, whether it is proper for it to have got into this question. If the Services Committee is advisory to Mr. Speaker, the Services Committee can be involved only in those matters that fall within the competence of Mr. Speaker.

These matters are not within the competence of Mr. Speaker to decide. We may be allowing these things to happen not by decisions of the House but by gradual habit, erosion and slippage.
I should like to see a long-term Procedure Committee sorting all this out, so that afterwards we shall have proposals to put to the House to tidy up the Committee structure of this place on a rational basis. But we cannot hold out any short-term hope of that happening, and I think the next General Election will occur before the House has anything of that nature from the Procedure Committee.
It follows that the House has to be ultra-careful about motions of this kind which come along without the present untidy structure of the House having been exploited to the full. For those reasons it would be wrong for the House to pass the motion tonight. It would be as if we were saying "We have a Procedure Committee but we do not intend to make use of it on matters that are clearly of a procedural nature."
The Procedure Committee has recently finished a number of studies, and I would have thought that the Committee ought to be able to look at this report pretty quickly. The matter could come back to the House with the advantage of the Committee's advice within 10 days or so. That would be common sense and is the course which ought to have been adopted before the matter was brought before the House in the first place.

12.25 p.m.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I had not intended to speak tonight; I came to listen. But I have been alarmed by the things that I have heard and by what I have read in the Sixth Report since the debate started.
I have sympathy for the points made by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). We ought to ask ourselves why we are in this position and why it has been necessary for the Services Committee to make this recommendation. The key is contained in paragraph 2 of that report, which talks about the volume of work having increased by 66 per cent. between 1964 and 1975. Successive Governments have overloaded the parliamentary machine,


none more so than the present Government, and it is no wonder that the machine is breaking down. No Government ever seem to learn. I hope that the Government will take the hint which has been dropped so broadly outside the House.
In addition, we have been serviced fairly badly because of industrial disputes. I do not know the cause of them, but undoubtedly the work load has been a contributory factor. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury would support me in thinking that we ought to beware of false economies. There is a suggestion that money could be saved by adapting our procedures. Obviously Parliament must be cost-conscious and should not be lavish with money, but if we are to work ridiculous hours, as we do, and be weighed down with such legislation as we have had in recent years, we must be serviced properly. It is ironic that we should be discussing the matter at this late hour when the vast majority of people are in bed or ought to be.
If we are to be properly serviced, we must not be unwilling as a nation to pay a fair amount, even if it is costly, to provide the services that Parliament needs, such as the production of Hansard, which we shall be discussing in the next debate.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: While we are talking about the House of Commons being cost-conscious, I wonder whether the House is aware that the signboards on the Interview Floor, notifying hon. Members that they cannot go into the part of the floor that is occupied by secretaries, cost £200. Is that being cost-conscious?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend, the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery), who has been a Member of the House as long as I, also called attention to a number of points that were not dealt with when the debate started. I do not know the answer to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), but it underlines a point that has been noticed by many of us who have been in the House for some time—the way in which some services are slipping. Although services have been improved in some directions, there

has been a falling off in others. Over the last decade work has constantly increased, and it is imprudent of Parliament not to ensure that it has the best possible service that money can buy economically.
According to the report, services are beginning to slip. This is the first stage. In a year or so there will be further amendments to cut back services further, although, presumably, the Government machine will go on inexorably.

Mr. Dan Jones: I do not think that hon. Members are entitled to malign people who have been working in the House for many years. If these expenditures have been going on, why the blazes did not hon. Members themselves put down Questions to Ministers—possibly the unnecessary expenditures could have been eliminated before they got off the ground—instead of coming here and preaching about inefficiency? I am confident that the Leader of the House would give fair answers if the Questions were put to him.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman has been in the House for as long as I have, and his interruptions are getting longer. I know that he is a fair man and I am sure he will agree that our business, irrespective of which party has been in Government, has increased enormously since he first came here.
The servicing of parliamentary papers has got much worse in recent years, and if we are to do our jobs we must have the best possible provision of technical facilities. These proposals are a step in the wrong direction and will lead to other steps in the wrong direction. They will put increasing power in the hands of the Executive, and that must be a bad thing.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Robert Banks: I did not originally intend to speak in this debate, but I agree with much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Smith) said about the need for the efficient servicing of hon. Members.
My attention has been drawn to the memorandum submitted by Her Majesty's Stationery Office which shows that production at the HMSO printing press rose by 66 per cent. between 1964 and 1975 and that output per operative increased


by 81 per cent. That is a good record, and a tribute should be paid to the people working at the press for that result.
I am concerned about the examination of the period from October 1974 to August 1975 which showed that 58 per cent. of amendments for inclusion in marshalled lists and 59 per cent. of other amendments were tabled after 9.30 p.m. That means that nearly half the amendments were tabled after 9.30 p.m., and if the motion is passed many hon. Members will be seriously inconvenienced. It will be hard for many to accept and frustrating for many others. Hon. Members who may have been out of the House for the early part of an evening could return for a 10 p.m. vote and find that the shop had shut and they could not table amendments. We should be improving the facilities for hon. Members, but these proposals will make things more difficult for us.
There is an estimated saving, but with the weight of legislation that comes before the House we must not complicate our systems by approving the 9.30 p.m. deadline for amendments or the alteration of the typographical format for adding one's name to Early-Day Motions.
It is convenient for hon. Members to be able to see a motion in full and to read the names attached to it. Having to beaver round the House, looking for the number of the motion and checking it, will take time and be inconvenient. Every minute in this place is of vital and useful importance.
Perhaps I do not carry the House with me on that, but I believe that we should consider carefully what problems we may be creating for ourselves in future. For example, the reprinting of only the first name on a motion is more for us and our secretaries to think about. This measure should be taken back and reconsidered so that alternatives can be presented to us.

12.35 a.m.

Mr. Tim Renton: Having listened carefully to the debate, I must say that we are in danger of getting carried away by the importance of what are in essence relatively unimportant matters in our parliamentary procedure.
When I read the Sixth Report, the acceptance of which was ably moved by

my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke), I considered the two suggested amendments. I must say straight away that I thought that both amendments were fairly unimportant and quite acceptable. I should be sorry if we did not pass the report tonight because we were concerned that it had been presented to us by the Services Committee rather than by the Procedure Committee, as the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) pointed out. In that respect something has gone slightly wrong in the works that I do not understand. However, I think that we are in danger of making asses of ourselves if we turn down this saving and reject two fairly unimportant amendments because of the essentially procedural point that the hon. Gentleman has made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) pointed out that, according to the appendix to the report, half the amendments were tabled after 9.30 p.m., which showed the relative importance of curtailing the time available and making the time limit 9 o'clock rather than 9.30 or 10 o'clock, as at present. Due to the fallibility of us all, we tend to table things as late as possible. If we know, for example, that we have a time limit of 4 o'clock for the tabling of Questions, we all rush into the Table Office at five minutes to 4 o'clock with our pieces of yellow paper. If we knew that we had to table amendments by 9 o'clock, far and away the majority of amendments would be tabled by that time without any great inconvenience.
The report states that if it is possible for amendments to be printed when tabled after 9 o'clock, that should happen. I cannot see that either of the amendments is in itself very important.

Mr. George Cunningham: The point I was making was not that it should be the Procedure Committee's name that is on the report rather than that of the Services Committee but that the Procedure Committee may have points of guidance to offer to the House as to the implications of these proposals. There are many important points on the content and format of the Order Paper which the Procedure Committee ought to want to put to the House, and these are some of them. I want to have its advice on the


proposals before the House comes to a decision.

Mr. Renton: I take the point, which is valid. Surely we all have some knowledge of the relative importance of the suggested minor amendments and are able to consider whether they are of sufficient importance to warrant going back to the Procedure Committee. In my opinion, the answer is that they are not of sufficient importance.
There are two particular matters that I put before the House. First, I think it is a fairly great mistake to print a report in which one of the pieces of evidence adduced—the report includes specimens showing the old and new forms and demonstrates the considerable savings from the latter—has, as the asterisk explains, not been reported and, therefore, has not been attached. That makes nonsense of the argument. It seems that we are being asked to decide something in vacuo without the evidence that is available.
My other point goes back to the stage when my lion. Friend the Member for Bristol, West was queried on the case for the savings in the new printing of Early-Day Motions. It seems that the amendment revolves around leaving out a number of names whenever Early-Day Motions are reprinted. I find it hard to believe that this will lead to a saving of £40,000 to £50,000. That seems to be a great deal of money, amounting to about £3 for every page that will not be printed in future. That seems to be a high figure. I hope that the Minister will deal with the points I have made.

Mr. Crouch: I should like to take up my hon. Friend on his suggestion that these are very small matters. That was not what the Committee thought. In paragraph 12, on the subject of the
Revised format for Added Names to Early Day Motions",
my hon. Friend will notice that the Committee observed:
Again Your Committee believe that this proposal should be basically acceptable, at least as a price for securing more timely delivery of papers.
It goes on to say:
a Member wishing to see the full text of any other of the numerous Early Day Motions has to consult the collected volumes kept in

the Table Office and Library or to seek a copy from the Vote Office. The effect of HMSO's proposal would be to extend this to all Motions. Thus, again, the rights of Members to table Motions and amendments thereto, and to add names would not be restricted, although the failure to reprint Motions might cause some inconvenience for some Members.
I suggest that that is not a small matter.

Mr. Renton: I do not quite see the point that my hon. Friend is making. The Committee has revised the original recommendations and has suggested that the original sponsoring names should be reprinted whenever an Early-Day Motion is reprinted. The Committee has most beneficially altered the original recommendation from the Stationery Office.

12.43 p.m.

Mr. Roger Moate: I want to say a few words primarily in support of what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) has just said. If I disagree with my hon. Friend at all, it is only in his reference to the possibility of this having any procedural implications.
Having listened carefully to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) as well as to the debate, and having reread the report, I think it seems pretty clear that there are no procedural implications arising from these changes.
The Services Committee was right to consider this as properly coming within its ambit. We are faced with two simple propositions. Substantial savings could result from such minor changes. A total saving of £58,000 is quite considerable compared with the small amount of inconvenience that hon. Members will be caused.
Why do I say there are no procedural implications? The first proposition is that amendments wil have to be tabled by 9 o'clock if they are to be printed in marshalled form the following day. There is no change with regard to those amendments being printed the following day. They will still appear just as they would at present. The rights of Back Benchers, or, indeed, the Government, to table amendments to Bills will in no way be affected.
Our rights are in no way reduced. There is no change in procedure. I cannot see how it can be argued that this


is a matter that should be referred to the Procedure Committee. If indeed the first recommendation results in a saving of £13,000, I would have thought it was not unreasonable. If it affected our right to get amendments down in good time, I would challenge it wholeheartedly, but I do not think it does.
With regard to Early-Day Motions, my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) got the point slightly wrong. It is not that easy at the moment to go to the Vote Office, immediately pick up the Vote and see all the Early-Day Motions printed in full. There is no easy form of reference. The vast majority of Early-Day Motions can be referred to only by number and not by title. It involves a great deal of effort on an hon. Member's part to find out what an Early-Day Motion says in full and to find out who are its signatories. All that is being suggested is that the brief reference should be extended to Early-Day Motions on a more general basis.
If that slight inconvenience to hon. Members—having to look up Early-Day Motions on rather more occasions than at present—will save the taxpayer £45,000, I do not think that the House should brush it aside lightly and say that we ought to go on spending that sort of money.
It is because I think that the Services Committee has put forward a reasonable case, and because I believe that it is right for hon. Members to judge these matters and exercise their judgment, that I think it would be wrong if the motion were withdrawn. Even if the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury is right and this is a matter of procedure, it is still a good thing that it should come to the House for discussion. We have had a very good debate.
The case has been well presented in the report, and it is a convincing one for making this modest saving at little inconvenience to hon. Members.

Mr. Sims: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not only a modest saving in expense but a small price to pay for the timely delivery of House of Commons papers? The timely delivery of those papers is a service that we require and that we look to the Services Committee to provide.

Mr. Moate: if I were concerned about the timely arrival of papers, I would go along wholeheartedly with those who wish to reduce the burden of papers that are produced and the burden of legislation. That is where we could make more attractive reforms, but it is up to the Government Front Bench, which could take up less time by introducing less legislation.

Mr. Marten: Would my hon. Friend agree that one of the biggest economies of time, money and expenditure could be achieved if we scrapped all the EEC Papers?

Mr. Spearing: They are not printed!

Mr. Moate: It would help if the Minister would tell us the amount of money which could be saved there.
On this occasion, I think that the Services Committee deserves our support.

12.47 a.m.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: In the few remarks I wish to make, I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). I believe that there are some questions relating to procedure within this matter. Certainly the ability of hon. Members to act within a certain timetable is being affected by the recommendations which we are debating. While I do not often agree with the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, I believe that where the procedure of the House and the interests of hon. Members are concerned he is very assiduous, and hon. Members should listen to him carefully. He has made some valid points.
The revised format for adding names to Early-Day Motions is a matter of some importance. I consider that Early-Day Motions are a particularly important form of communication, and very often we receive letters from our constituents asking us to add our names to various Early-Day Motions on the Order Paper. It is very difficult, if one lives and operates in the Norman Shaw North building, to get one's secretary to go to the Table Office or the main Vote Office to look at the Early-Day Motions.
If an Early-Day Motion is popular, it appears on the Order Paper day after day whenever a new name is added. The popular motions are likely to be on the


Order Paper for as much as 10 parliamentary working days. Once one has a copy of an Early-Day Motion, one can send it to one's constituents with the full text of the motion and with one's name added. This is a valuable service which hon. Members offer to their constituents. But it often happens that one must rummage around in the Vote Office or Table Office for the information and can find only the title and the number of the Early-Day Motion. I regard this as highly unsatisfactory.
The convenience of hon. Members is time and again being eroded, and things are being made more difficult. If we can spend £26,000 on a Members' entrance and £200 on a confounded sign or two on the Interview Floor saying that hon. Members can no longer go there unless they have secretaries operating there, even though hon. Members have been going there for many years, it is an extraordinary situation.
The £45,000 that is involved in this change is money that is not well saved. It will take from our constituents a valuable service. For that reason, if any hon. Member will support me in opposing the recommendation I shall be happy to divide the House.

12.50 a.m.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I shall be brief because I am aware that late-night sittings are as expensive as printing all the Early-Day Motions. EEC papers are occasionally printed for the House, and the cost of the demand papers for EEC documents is £8,000 a year.
I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), and he convinced me that the Services Committee's proposals are worth supporting. We are asked to get amendments to the Public Bill Office one and a half hours earlier, which seems perfectly reasonable. There is no question of any amendment not being printed. Amendments have to be in within one and a half hours of a Bill being considered for them to have a reasonable chance of being debated in Committee or on the Floor of the House.
The second proposal has created confusion in the minds of some hon. Members. In essence, it is that a motion should not be repeated in full every time

it appears. The title will be printed, and the title, which can be up to two lines containing, presumably, 20 or 30 words, will convey the sense of the motion adequately. Apart from that, there is no change from the present procedure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said that this was a great inconvenience because he would be unable to send a copy of motions to his constituents. I usually try to send constituents a copy of a motion with my name on it. The repetition of a motion, with the name appearing on only one day, is a curious way of demonstrating one's competence—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend has misunderstood the proposal. The full text of the motion will not necessarily be published on the day he adds his name. The constituent will be interested in the full details of the motion.

Mr. Bottomley: I have developed the practice of keeping the original copy of the motion when I first get the opportunity of considering whether to add my name to it. When my name is added, it is a simple matter to add that to what I send to my constituent.
The report was produced in the first place because of the load on the printers and Her Majesty's Stationery Office. We therefore need to take it seriously. I would go further than the report. If we are concerned with savings as well as with convenience, we can save vast sums of money in many other areas. When we sit late, many members of the staff in associated offices are kept late. That matter should be committed to the Services Committee and both Procedure Committees, and the sooner the better.

12.54 a.m.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: This matter was on the Order Paper yesterday for a short period. If Opposition Members had listened to what I had to say on that occasion instead of trooping out, we might have got rid of this problem yesterday. Most of the others were in their constituencies or somewhere. However, we are here.
I have listened closely to the debate, and I have changed my mind about three times. I now tend to the view of the report that, because it means that there will be a tightening up of the need to get


amendments in before 9 p.m., the chances are that those who are a little keener, spend a little more time here and do not come dashing in merely for 10 o'clock are more likely to be on the ball. So I think that that favours me. I shall therefore vote for the motion on those grounds.
But there is one other consideration—the position of my trade union colleagues, the people involved in any cuts in expenditure. I have been having a few words with the people who matter, and I am informed that there are not likely to be any redundancies resulting from this minor reform, so I am satisfied in that regard. I hope, however, that my hon. Friend will at all times confer with the people concerned—the unions and those they represent—in the various departments in order to ensure that no redundancies take place because of these two reports.
It is my information that, far from there being the ability to make redundancies and to make substantial savings, the Stationery Office needs a big increase in personnel in order to keep up with the work load—indeed, as much as a 50 per cent. increase in establishment. I want to impress upon my hon. Friend that, whatever steps are taken in this or any other matter, he should keep in close touch with the workpeople to ensure that no redundancies arise. If we get more redundant paper, that will be OK—some hon. Members will have to be more observant and quicker on their feet to be aware of the changes taking place. But we cannot afford to sack anyone.

12.58 a.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Perhaps I might be allowed briefly to reply to some of the points which have been made in the debate. I hope that I shall do nothing to lose the support of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I am grateful to have him on our side on this occasion. He says that he will vote for the motion if there is a vote.
Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that I am certain that I speak for the trade unions involved when I say that they are desperate for the relief that this modest experiment will bring them at a very difficult time. The presses they are operating came up to full capacity in 1964 and are working fit to bust—and have busted on many occasions. We have

had many stoppages—prolonged stoppages—and we have photocopied papers even today.
I am grateful for the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley). He virtually answered the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winter-ton).

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: No.

Mr. Cooke: I am sorry if my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West failed my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield. I am not sure that I can do very much better, however. At any rate, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield declared himself as being a Teller in the Division that he intends to call. What should I do about that but to proceed to answer one or two other hon. Members who, I hope, might be persuaded to support our proposals? My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) is not present in the House at this point in our proceedings, but if he should be within earshot he might care to reflect that the report about which I believe he has reservations is not the one that we are debating now.
I should like now to try to establish the credentials of the Select Committee of which I am a member. The Services Committee is the heir and successor to the old Select Committee on Publications and Debates Reports—"Pubs and Debs" as it was known for many years. We believe that no matter of procedure is involved. We do not infringe the prerogative of other Select Committees in what we propose tonight. I believe that hon. Members support me in that contention, although I know that I shall not carry at least one hon. Member with me.
My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) rightly paid tribute to the increased productivity at the printing works. I have already said that they have just about reached their limit. Indeed, on some occasions they have gone over the top. That must be where they find themselves today. I assure my hon. Friend that paper size is completely irrelevant to this proposal. That is not part of the argument at all.
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) had some qualms about the way we propose to set out the


added names to Early-Day Motions. I think that much of what he said has been answered by other hon. Members. I endeavoured to make it clear that, although we did not propose to reprint the whole text of a motion each time there were added names, an expanded version of the title should be printed. I think that the title could be more explicit than it is now. The other day I asked my secretary to have my name added to the sperm whale motion. There are two motions relating to sperm whales. If they had had proper, explicit titles, my name would not have appeared on the wrong one.

Mr. Crouch: The Committee is proposing that the title should not exceed two lines in length. At the moment titles hardly ever go beyond one line. For example, Early-Day Motion No. 68 has a title of only five words,
Social Progress in Hong Kong.
But what does that mean? The explanation is complicated and requires 13 lines. Subsequently two amendments have been added. What will happen in future? Shall we have
Social Progress in Hong Kong
slightly expanded, and then an amendment by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry) "Line 3, leave out" so and so? Without the full text, the amendment means nothing.

Mr. Cooke: When an amendment is tabled the whole text will be printed in full, so that there will be no confusion. If my hon. Friend examines the report, he will see a reference to amendments. I made the point in my speech, and I believe that the report refers to it with some clarity. It is designed to make the position absolutely clear.

Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman may have covered this point about the expanded title in his opening speech and I may have missed it. Who will choose or decide what the expanded title should be? Should it not be the Member who heads the list? Some hon. Members feel that the first proposal is reasonable but that the second is not. As both proposals are in one report, we feel that we may not be able to support the report as a whole.

Mr. Cooke: I am sorry that I cannot help the hon. Gentleman on the second point. The two proposals are in the report.
On the first point, the hon. Member who tables a motion, together with his principal supporters—there are often six—will decide what title to give to the motion. The point I made in my opening speech—it has been made several times tonight—was that a Member will sometimes write out the text of an Early-Day Motion and not think of a title or will even forget it. When he goes to the Table Office, the Clerk will say "Will this do?" and they may have a bit of fun making up a suitable title. Sometimes it is only two or three words. An hon. Member will sometimes put a somewhat misleading title on a motion. I suppose that the hope is that others will read it if they are intrigued by the title. We are thinking of an expanded version of a couple of lines which will reasonably indicate what a motion is about.

Mr. George Cunningham: Extra printing.

Mr. Cooke: It is extra printing for the title but considerable savings elsewhere.
I turn to the financial aspects. The saving is £45,000, two-thirds of it on paper and one-third on labour.

Mr. George Cunningham: So that we can compare one of the Services Committee's savings with another, can the hon. Member remind the House what has been the cost in the last six months of the fairly elaborate redecorations which have taken place in Room 10 on the Upper Committee Corridor, which is labelled as a House of Commons records room but which appears to be the office of an hon. Member whose name I cannot remember? I know that when I looked in there this evening there were one or two bottles of whisky and some House of Commons records. Along with the cost of re-vamping that room for the benefit of whoever it is, can the hon. Member tell us the cost of moving one of the television rooms along the corridor? It must have amounted to many thousands of pounds. If the Services Committee wants to save money, it would do better to look at that and the laying and relaying of carpets on the Ways and


Means Corridor than trying to muck about with things that directly affect the rights of hon. Members.

Mr. Cooke: I cannot be drawn into explanations about carpets this evening. The Ways and Means carpet, which was such a disaster, was relaid at the expense of the contractor because it was faulty. The room to which the hon. Gentleman has referred is used for a wide variety of purposes, including meetings of the Select Committee of which I am Chairman, and for meetings at which we examine witnesses and interview officials. It also contains records relating to those matters. The hon. Gentleman is welcome to inspect the room at any time.
I have referred to almost all the points raised by hon. Members, many of whom made the same points. I am sure that the House wants to come to a conclusion on the matter. I have been invited to withdraw the report, but if I did that we should have no experiment, and that would mean no benefit for those overworked people at the printing works. Hon. Members must make a decision on whether to relieve the burden on the printers at some small inconvenience to themselves. If the experiment proves to be inconvenient we can go back, but we should give the experiment a chance.

Mr. George Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the motion is not withdrawn and is defeated, it will not be possible at some later stage for anyone to reintroduce it, even if there has been time for consultation in the meantime. If, however, it is withdrawn so that the Procedure Committee can look at the procedural implications, it will be possible for the report to come back in a week or 10 days and perhaps

for the motion to be passed. If the motion is not withdrawn but is defeated we shall not be able to press the matter, even if the Select Committee on Procedure wants us to pass it at a later stage.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I could not quite follow what the hon. Gentleman wants to do. He suggests that he would like the motion to be withdrawn. In that case, it would be possible for another motion relating to the same matter in the same or different terms to be reintroduced during the Session.

Mr. George Cunningham: I apologise for not having made myself clear, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am concerned at what will happen if the motion is not withdrawn but proceeds to a Division and is defeated. Am I right in thinking that it would not then be possible for the same motion to be tabled again, even if in the meantime the Select Committee on Procedure had been consulted and recommended that the House should accept the motion? On the other hand, if the motion were withdrawn tonight, would it not be possible for the same motion to be tabled, after consultation with the Select Committee, in order that the House might then decide to pass it? If we defeat the motion tonight, will that be the irretrievable end of it for this Session? If I am right on that, I suggest to the Front Benches that it might be as well to think again.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the motion is withdrawn, it can be reintroduced on a subsequent occasion in the same Session. If it is defeated today, I take it that that will be the end of it for this Session.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 40, Noes 18.

Division No. 35.]
AYES
[1.12 a.m.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Lawson, Nigel
Sims, Roger


Bottomley, Peter
Loyden, Eddle
Skinner, Dennis


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Cohen, Stanley
McCartney, Hugh
Urwin, T. W.


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Mather, Carol
Watkinson, John


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Moate, Roger
Weatherill, Bernard


Cryer, Bob
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


English, Michael
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Newton, Tony
Woof, Robert


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Noble, Mike
Younger, Hon George


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Parry, Robert



Goodhew, Victor
Penhaligon, David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Mr. Peter Snape and


John, Brynmor
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Mr Alf. Bates.


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roderick, Caerwyn





NOES


Banks, Robert
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Canavan, Dennis
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Ward, Michael


Carlisle, Mark
Marten, Nell
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Channon, Paul
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)



Crouch, David
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Emery, Peter
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
M. George Cunningham and


Evans, John (Newton)
Spearing, Nigel
Mr. Nicholas Winterton.


Glyn, Dr Alan

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House doth agree with the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) in their Sixth Report in the last Session of Parliament.

OFFICIAL REPORT (PRINTING)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House does agree with the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) in their First Report.—[Mr. Robert Cooke.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant God-man Irvine): The Question is the third motion.

Hon. Members: Aye.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Division.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order—

Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): The Division has been called.

Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do I understand that the motion was moved formally and that hon. Members who stood to speak to it did not catch your eye?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I did not notice any hon. Members rising to speak, if, in fact, there were any such Members.

Mr. Spearing: Further to that point of order. I certainly rose to speak.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call the hon. Gentleman.

1.24 a.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hour is late, but I wish to speak to the motion, although it was moved formally.
The report relating to the printing of Hansard and its page size merits some discussion, and I am surprised that hon. Members wished not to discuss it.
The previous debate showed that the printing of public papers was a very important matter, not only for the House but for democracy. The Select Committee's proposal that we should change not only the page size of Hansard but the size of print and the number of words in each column was something of a surprise to hon. Members. Hansard is not only produced for the convenience of hon. Members but is widely used inside the organs of government, by outside bodies, official and others, and by the general public.
To date, Hansard has been generally recognised as one of the miracles of printing. We owe a debt to those who produce it generally so efficiently and quickly. It is most convenient in its present form, being easy to handle and having columns which are sufficiently short and narrow for one to be able easily to see the word or reference that one wishes to pick out. Reference by column number is therefore to a relatively small number of words.
The proposal and the specimen produced for our inspection do not fall within those canons of convenience. The specimen is not so convenient to handle or for reference, and it is not so easily digestible when reading.
I am also surprised that the Committee has not reprinted the Stationery Office memorandum. After the reference to the Principal Clerk, Table Office, and Editor of the Official Report there is an asterisk, meaning "Not Reported". This merits comment. If the Committee is not prepared to publish the full Stationery Office report, presumably on the reasons why it is making its proposals, the House should not accept it.
My second point is that the money saved does not amount to a great deal. According to the report, it is £180,000 of


capital cost. The cost of Hansard over a year, let alone of the House, is massive by comparison. We have not had the opportunity of reading the memorandum which sets out the savings in full.
I should not be so worried if we had the Vote on the larger paper, but it would he inconvenient to have the reports of Committees, such as that with which we are dealing, in the larger size. However, I would prefer them to be printed on larger paper, and perhaps save some money in that way, and have Hansard the same size.

Dr. Alan Glyn: The hon. Gentleman said that the proportionate saving would be very small. He owes it to the House to say what proportion it would be, because that is what we are debating.

Mr. Spearing: That is a fair point, but the £180,000 is a saving on capital cost and not recurring cost. I do not know the annual cost of Hansard. We may be told by whoever winds up the debate.
I oppose the motion and hope that it will be withdrawn. If it is not, I hope that it will be defeated on a vote, because the present size of Hansard is convenient for the House, the public and perhaps even the Post Office in getting it to the public, who will want more copies of Hansard when radio comes to the House. We should be concentrating on the convenience of the people who read the Official Report rather than on a relatively small saving in methods of production.

1.30 a.m.

Mr. David Crouch: I know that it is late and that the Minister rushed to the Dispatch Box to speak, but this is an important matter and we should not be rushed.
I wish to complain most strongly at the absence of the Leader of the House when we are discussing such an important matter. The shape and size of our Parliamentary Official Report is to be changed on the recommendation of a Committee. I am suggesting not that the Committee is not empowered to make studies and recommendations but that the right hon. Gentleman should be present to tell the House why he thinks that the new format is a better size—if it is a better size—and to say whether those engaged in professional book production

regard it as a better size. Furthermore, if the right hon. Gentleman regards the new size as less suitable, he should be here so to advise the House.
We are to be given our Official Report in an entirely different format.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It is a paperback.

Mr. Crouch: It is not a paperback, but it is very nearly the size of the Daily Mirror. It is certainly not something I can read in bed at night.
I gather that if the House accepts this proposal, it will be for an experimental period.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Michael English: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how the beautiful ranks of Hansards in the British Museum can be kept in the same shelves if they are to be of a different size, and if it is to be for an experimental period only?

Mr. Crouch: I have been corrected and told that it is not for an experimental period. That makes this an even more serious matter. It is a fundamentally important change. The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) points to the difficulties that will be experienced in the British Museum and other libraries.
I would point to the fact that some hon. Members have been provided with new furniture at a cost that would make this saving of £182,000 look quite silly. The cost of furniture in my new office must be enormous—not far short of £100,000. I have facilities for storing my blue-bound copies of Hansard and they make a very good background when I am televised in my office. I keep them in date order. It is possible to alter the shelves to take a much longer book, but if this proposal goes through I shall need another shelf within a very short time.

Mr. Neil Marten: It is all very well for my hon. Friend to talk about the lush conditions in which he works in Norman Shaw Building. He must think of other hon. Members who have to keep their copies of Hansard in their penthouse flats and who have to buy their own shelves. What about letter boxes? We shall have to have new


letter boxes to accommodate the new size Hansard. Can the Minister say whether there will be grants for new bookshelves and letter boxes?

Mr. Crouch: This is an important point about letter boxes. I do not want to be facetious, but it is now 1.30 a.m., I shall shortly be going to bed and I shall not get up tomorrow until after the postman has come to my London flat. At present, Hansard comes through the letter box. But it will be disadvantageous if hon. Members have to get up at 8 a.m., after late night sittings, in order to collect their copies of Hansard.
The proposed size and format are not right for convenient reading. It is not the way in which Dickens would be printed but the way in which Shakespeare would be printed for a play reading. But Hansard is not play reading. Reading Hansard is a serious business.
The Select Committee must withdraw this proposal, go away and think again and not trifle us with ideas for saving £182,000. We are used to trying to save money even when we build a car park here, but then we are talking about millions of pounds. In this case there would be a trivial saving as a result of taking a step in the wrong direction.

1.36 a.m.

The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Charles R. Morris): I have been hesitant to intervene in the debate so far, but I welcome the opportunity of responding to the invitation extended by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke). This has provided me with an opportunity of speaking on a motion relating to the First Report of the current Session of the Services Committee following its consideration of a paper submitted to it by Her Majesty's Stationery Office. I have some responsibility for this and I am answerable to the House for Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
Perhaps I could endorse the tribute that has been paid to the increased work and productivity achieved by the staff of the printing works and of the Stationery Office in seeking to provide our printing needs.

Mr. English: I accept what the Minister has said, but would he also explain why it is that since the management of the Stationery Office united the Parliamentary Press with other branches of the Government press, this House has been worse served? Does the Minister agree that that decision was wrong and should be reversed, and that the House would be better served if it had its own printing press?

Mr. Morris: I do not accept my hon. Friend's contention. The House has its own parliamentary press.
It is essential for the House to decide whether it wishes to proceed along the lines indicated by the motion. Perhaps it would be helpful if I explained some of the detailed background to the proposal. I take the opportunity of expressing my gratitude to the Services Committee for undertaking such careful consideration of the proposals put to it.
Since St. Stephen's Parliamentary Press reached its planned capacity in 1964, parliamentary needs have grown from 65,000 pages to 133,000 pages a year—an increase of more than 100 per cent—and are expected to increase to 150,000 pages a year by 1981, a further increase of 13 per cent.
The current overnight requirement at peak times in a Session is equivalent in typesetting terms to three national daily newspapers. The principal parliamentary printing requirements comprise 14 different items and total 120,000 pages a year.
To cope with the increased growth, HMSO has added extra staff and machines where accommodation has allowed, achieved increased output from operatives as a result of more intensive working, examined and amended priorities to smooth the flow of major tasks, extensively used additional overtime and steadily and increasingly off-loaded suitable parts of its work to private printers.

Mr. Jim Craigen: Does the anticipated increase in volume cover just Hansard papers or all governmental reports? We spent most of today debating devolution, yet we have a printing press in Edinburgh and I wonder whether it could be given additional work in order to relieve the pressure on the London presses.

Mr. Morris: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. The St. Stephen's Press, to which the report refers, is concerned with the production of Hansard. The Edinburgh press is used for a variety of printing jobs but not for the production of the Official Report. I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said about off-loading suitable work to the Stationery Office press at Edinburgh.

Dr. Glyn: Let us forget the strikes at the printing works and concentrate on the recommendation that the size of Hansard should be increased. This will affect the daily, weekly and bound volumes of the Official Report. I do not believe that it is worth changing the size of all these volumes—thereby increasing the space taken on hon. Member's bookshelves—for a saving of £182,000.

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the report will have an impact on the size of the daily, weekly and bound copies of Hansard, but I cannot accept his contention that a saving of £182,000 is a trifle.

Mr. Dudley Smith: If, as I forecast, the new format proves to be desperately unpopular, shall we find that the change is irrevocable?

Mr. Morris: If I may continue, I shall indicate the justifications for the change in the page size of Hansard and the hon. Gentleman will be able to decide for himself whether it will be irrevocable.
I was indicating the strain under which the HMSO operates, and the main symptom of that strain has been the late delivery of essential parliamentary papers.
The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) is right to express concern about the inconvenience to Members and those who monitor our proceedings outside that any change in our printing procedures will cause, but he should bear in mind that currently those who monitor our proceedings outside and Members have already been subjected to appreciable inconvenience.

Mr. Spearing: I am glad that my hon. Friend is now able to address the House, something that he did not originally choose to do. Those of us who are unhappy about this change are not against the re-equipping of the press, against

photo-type setting or against even more people being employed. What we are against is the size. Perhaps my hon. Friend will address himself to that point.

Mr. Morris: If my hon. Friend and Members generally allow me to continue with my speech, perhaps I shall be able to illuminate their thoughts. Perhaps it is being immodest to suggest that I can achieve that desirable end.
I did not choose to address the House. This is essentially a House of Commons matter. It was not a question of my choosing to address—

Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister has just announced that he did not choose to address the House on this subject

Mr. Morris: I hope that I can continue to make my speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps my hon. Friends and Members generally will try to follow the arguments that I am endeavouring to put.
I was referring to the main symptom of the stress upon the St. Stephen's Parliamentary Press in recent months. It has manifested itself in the late delivery of essential parliamentary papers—for example, in the past parliamentary Session over half the early deliveries of the Vote bundle were not made to schedule. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will not be surprised to know that statistics show that there is a close relationship between the volume of printing and the occasions of late delivery.
I have already said that the present press is working to the limits of its capacity. Overtime working has reached the realms of counter-productivity during peak times of sessional activity. The long-term solution to the problem clearly lies in rehousing the press in accommodation in which it would be possible to install modern processes. The Stationery Office is actively pursuing such a course but it will take at least two or three years to implement the new techniques after the decision to proceed has been authorised.
The proposal to change the page size of the Official Report follows the acceptance of a standard of paper sizes by the paper making trade in this country some 20 years ago and the gradual adoption of the standard by the printing machine


manufacturers. The size that is proposed for the Official Report is known, as many Members realise, as A4. Most hon. Members will be familiar with it in its everyday life. It measures 11¾ in. by 8¾ in. That is about two inches larger in each dimension than the current size of the Official Report.
The proposed page size would have a number of advantages over the current size. The first advantage is that there would be a substantial reduction in the number of pages to be printed, which is important. That is something that those who were talking about the size of weekly and bound editions of Hansard might bear in mind.

Dr. Glyn: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He has been very reasonable with regard to my first point. Surely, if this whole procedure has to be altered, it means changing the size of the printing press. That means an enormous amount of capital expenditure, and that has not been taken into consideration in the £182,000 saving. How much, in fact, are we saving in capital costs and the yearly running of Hansard?

Mr. Morris: Perhaps I can put it simply to the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right when he says that the changing of the size will involve appreciable expenditure. That is the whole basis of the Services Committee Report.
We are going to create a new Parliamentary Press which will require new machines. Basically the Services Committee is inviting the House to consider—

Mr. English: Why are we getting rid of the old ones?

Mr. Morris: We are getting rid of the old ones because they are 30 years old. The St. Stephen's Press reached its capacity in 1964.
If we are to build a new Parliamentary Press, and if we were to purchase new machines that provided for printing a multiplicity of different page sizes, then the cost involved would be appreciably higher. This is where we come to the £182,000.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Morris: I have only a few more arguments to put and the House can then proceed to debate the issue.
Clearly the use of this size would reduce the time ultimately spent on setting up presses and finishing equipment for variations in paper and page sizes. That would lead to financial savings. Further savings would derive from the fact that paper stocks would be, and could be, reduced.
Furthermore, the capital costs of plant designed for standard A4 pages are substantially less than for those machines able to cope with a variety of sizes. The capital saving on the plant for the Official Report would, as I have indicated, be £182,000—about 20 per cent. of the total equipment cost.
Even greater savings would be achieved by printing the Vote bundle on the A4 size. I hope the House will agree that, particularly in current economic circumstances, proposals involving such potential savings in public expenditure merit very careful consideration.
Frankly, I know of no hon. Members on the Opposition Benches, and very few on my hon. Friends, who have not exhorted the nation generally to have regard for the need for economies in public expenditure. The House tonight has the opportunity of practising what it preaches.
Moreover, the larger page sizes would allow more flexibility and variations in format. The Services Committee believes that the present layout and style commend themselves for their clarity and ease of reading and that the House finds them generally acceptable. On the new size, the format could readily be altered in response to the wishes of the House.
Before I close I should say a few words about the new presses and the time scale. I have already said that in the longer term the solution to the problems of parliamentary printing lies in the Stationery Office's plan to construct a new press. This would be equipped to produce the Official Report, utilising modern methods of computer-assisted composition, web-offset lithography, and other developments.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Do I understand from what my hon. Friend has said that we are going to embark


on a programme of capital expenditure on new presses, which will, in a fairly short time, be overtaken by a completely new form of printing with offset litho or whatever system is devised? Surely that means that the savings will be for a limited number of years? Why do we not keep on with the old presses until we come to the offset litho?

Mr. Morris: My hon. Friend has misunderstood the point. The situation is that the present presses at St. Stephen's Parliamentary Press are about 30 years old, and have reached the limit of their capacity. I have already indicated the manifestations of the strain in terms of printing capacity. We now propose to have new presses, in a new location. These will incorporate the new technology of printing, in order to take advantage of that technology. We are now in a position of working out tenders for the new machinery needed for the new plant. It would be advantageous if the Stationery Office could have a decision on the page size of the Official Report.

Mr. Roger Moate: We have before us a grossly inadequate report. The Minister has referred, time and time again, to a saving of £182,000. Could he tell us the facts and figures of the total expenditure? This could be a very marginal amount in relation to the overall capital expenditure involved in this project.

Mr. Morris: As I indicated in the course of my speech, it is about 20 per cent. of the total capital expenditure. My mathematics is not such that I can work that out at 2 o'clock in the morning.

Mr. Tim Renton: On the point of public expenditure savings, all of us have pressed for such savings. The report says that the saving in the cost of installation of this machinery will be about £182,000. Has the Minister made any estimate of the additional capital cost in the House of Commons Library and other libraries up and down the country of altering shelves, files and filing systems for taking parliamentary papers printed in the new size? I have a suspicion that there will be very much greater expenditure.

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I think that there will

be a degree of inconvenience, and perhaps limited expenditure incurred in altering shelves and so on. But I ask the House to consider seriously the savings, because this is crucial. With the help of my officials, I am able to tell the House that the overall expenditure is £850,000. That does not take account of the expenditure involved in acquiring a new site.

Mr. English: My hon. Friend does not realise that every hon. Member is sympathetic to him. Not one of the persons responsible for the situation he is in is in the Box behind him. I do not wish to name names. There is an ugly man with spectacles who once said that two presses should be united. His theory was that if presses used to producing Government publications and presses used to producing parliamentary publications were united, the lowest common denominator in wages would be adopted and public expenditure would be saved. When the presses got together they naturally adopted the highest common factor. There are simple—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman making an intervention or attempting to catch my eye?

Mr. English: I was attempting to make an intervention. We have to get to the truth. At one time printers who worked for Her Majesty's Government worked for newspapers during August when their printers were on holiday—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman has a contribution to make it should not be made in the middle of another hon. Member's speech.

Mr. English: With the greatest respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it would shorten my speech if I made my intervention now. My hon. Friend the Minister and the whole House have been misled. My hon. Friend has been led into this situation by circumstances which have been caused by people who have not clearly advised him what those circumstances are.

Mr. Morris: I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said. The one encouraging feature of his comments is that his criticisms of the proposal are not directed to me personally.
The Stationery Office has in mind possible delay to the timetable—

Mr. Peter Emery: The Minister rightly said that we must consider the savings. He quoted a saving of £182,000 on the capital cost. Has the Committee considered the major increase in binding costs which will arise because of the considerably larger book, and the extra cost of the hardboard or leather? I am advised that the binding cost is likely to be up by one-third. Will the Minister give the House information about that, because the saving to which he refers might be lost in the increased binding costs?

Mr. Morris: I shall endeavour to ensure that when he replies to the debate the Chairman of the Committee answers that point.
The possible delays envisaged by the Stationery Office will only exacerbate the difficulties of maintaining an acceptable service to Parliament. Tenders for the supply of new machinery will need to be sought in the early part of this year to enable the new equipment to be run in during the long recess in 1978. Before tenders can be requested, a decision on the page size of the Official Report is needed. If the potential savings are not to be delayed or put at risk, the Stationery Office needs to know the wishes of

Division No. 36.]
AYES
[2.06 a.m.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Banks, Robert
Loyden, Eddle
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Bottomley, Peter
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Urwin, T. W.


Canavan, Dennis
McCartney, Hugh
Weatherill, Bernard.


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol)
Mahon, Simon
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Woof, Robert


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Newton, Tony



Evans, John (Newton)
Noble, Mike
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Parry, Robert
Mr. Alfred Bates and


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Sims, Roger
Mr. Walter Harrison.


John, Brynmor
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)





NOES



Skinner, Dennis




TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Nigel Spearing and




Mr. Nicholas Winterton.




It appearing on the report of the Division that forty Members were not present, Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided, and the business under consideration stood over until the next Sitting of the House.

the House as soon as possible. As I have said, at some future date I hope that hon. Members will be invited to make a similar decision with regard to Vote papers.

The price that the House is being asked to pay to achieve impressive savings and an improvement in service is little more than the loss of a familiar face. Some may claim the loss of the ability to slip the Official Report into their coat pocket. That is true. But I think that most of us, whose pockets refuse to take the present size unfolded, will find that the new version, with its fewer pages and broader leaf, folds more readily and thus may be pocketed more easily. I commend the Services Committee's proposals to the House.

2.6 a.m.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The new format seems sensible. It requires us to expand the space between our bookshelves by three-thirteenths. The extra 50 per cent. across the upper line will take up one-third less space going laterally. On these grounds, the proposal is worth supporting.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 28, Noes 1.

MR. TERENCE GALLOGLY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]

2.20 a.m.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: rose—

Mr. Tim Renton: I had risen before the motion for the Adjournment was moved, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask the Minister to set out the Government's intentions in the light of this crushing rebuff of their hopes to change the shape and size of Hansard?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. This is now taking time out of the Adjournment debate.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I rise to address the House on the issue of a man who was imprisoned at Wakefield Prison at the material time from June 1976, serving the last six months of his sentence on the pre-release prison hostel scheme. His name is Terence Gallogly. In my view he has been treated with a measure of injustice which I hope I shall find words capable of explaining but which my powers of oratory may well fail to encompass.
Before he went to prison this man was a diligent trade unionist, and at the time he was on the prison hostel scheme he was employed by a firm of tubular garden furniture makers in Batley. The firm was called Aronsteads. The man found to his surprise that the firm was not unionised. It contained about 30 per cent. Asian workers and 40 per cent. women workers. In his view they were getting a raw deal from the firm and would benefit from trade union organisation.
Therefore, with the assistance of the area organiser of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers he formed a branch at the firm and he was one of a number of shop stewards who were elected by the first meeting of the branch. It is interesting to note, in the light of later developments, that the Asian employees thought that they should have an Asian shop steward of their own.
They selected an Asian who was the holder of a disabled person's green card and who was prevented by his disability from working at a machine standing. Nevertheless, the information about the branch meeting, which was held in a local public house, was obviously received by the manager after the lunchtime adjournment, and that very afternoon the Asian shop steward was put on a machine which meant that he would have to stand for the rest of the day. When at the end of the day he protested, he was dismissed. Such was the attitude of the firm towards the establishment of a union in its employment.
The first that I heard about the position of Mr. Gallogly was when he came to see me on 2nd October. The date is material. He then explained to me in words which I later recounted to the Minister in the first letter that I sent him that he had been warned by the prison authorities that he could not carry out the functions of a shop steward as a prisoner on the hostel release scheme, and if he continued in that capacity the firm was objecting and he would have to be withdrawn from the firm, which would mean his return to prison.
I asked the Minister on 13th October to investigate this matter because I did not think that it could be right. It took the Home Office until the middle of November to reply. That reply proving unsatisfactory, there has been further correspondence. But the whole matter has been so delayed that I have not been able to get redress for Mr. Gallogly before he left prison at the end of his sentence on 20th December.
Such are the antiquated procedures of this House that, to call the Executive to account for what I regard as its maladministration, I have been seeking to get an Adjournment debate since the middle of December. I have only come up in the Ballot this week, only to find that we are discussing the matter at 2.30 in the morning. Such is the way in which Parliament is supposed to be able to try to control the Executive.
This means that the effective redress for Mr. Gallogly has been missed and that nothing that I say now will lead to effective redress by Government. He is himself taking action before the industrial


tribunal a week on Monday, I think, to try to get some sort of compensation or reinstatement to make up for his dismissal. I am concerned tonight with the Government's part in this, particularly that of Wakefield Prison.
After I had written to Lord Harris, I received a notification that Gallogly had been withdrawn from the hostel back to the prison. It was alleged that this was because he had intervened on behalf of an employer who had been attacked with a bayonet by one of the foremen and that as a result of his intervention the foreman had been dismissed. It was alleged by the prison that the firm was claiming that other foremen had threatened to injure Gallogly because of his intervention.
Gallogly himself, from his inquiries of the firm, does not believe that there ever was such a threat, although it is fair to say that the managing director of the firm confirmed to me that he had had that threat expressed to him by shop stewards. However, it is clear that it was not that and that alone which caused the prison authorities to withdraw Gallogly from the hostel scheme: the firm had been pressing for his withdrawal for some time before the incident with the bayonet.
He was removed on 22nd October, the very day of the incident, and taken back to Wakefield. On 11th October, after some Press publicity about the matter and, I think, demonstrations outside the prison, he was sent back to the hostel. There the warden told him that the firm would not re-employ him and that he must look for work elsewhere in the area.
Mr. Gallogly says that he took the view that it might prejudice his appeal to the industrial tribunal if he were to obtain other work elsewhere. He wanted to be reassured that that was not the case by the union's legal adviser. He therefore told the warden that he would not apply for other work until he had received that reassurance.
He was seen only hours later by the assistant governor and repeated the same refusal to him. I make the point because later in the correspondence Lord Harris, the Home Office Minister responsible for the Prison Department, claimed in a letter to me that Gallogly had refused absolutely to take work. That was untrue. I am

convinced that Lord Harris said that in innocence, on instructions he had been given, and that therefore he had been deceived by the prison about the real nature of Gallogly's refusal.
Gallogly actually went to the trouble of writing out a statement to the assistant governor which made perfectly plain that his refusal was conditional only on obtaining the necessary reassurances from the union's legal adviser, and he had originally told this to the hostel warden, Mr. Rock, only hours before he wrote out that document to the assistant governor. It is untrue that, as Lord Harris later claimed, Gallogly told different stories at different times.
I say for the record that when I first heard the story in October I was inevitably sceptical about it and waited to hear what was the Prison Department's version of the story. In the welter of stories that I have heard since then everything that Mr. Gallogly told me has been confirmed from some other source. Although there has been a degree of hard lying from somebody in this story, I am convinced that it was not from him. I suspect that it was either from the Prison Department or the firm. The Prison Department claims that the firm was pressing it to withdraw Gallogly even before the bayonet incident, but in a telephone call to me representatives of the firm claimed that they were not and that they never asked for him to be removed until after the bayonet incident, when there was a threat to his life.
They say that he was never appointed shop steward, but I have a letter from the area organised of the AUEW which states that his appointment as shop steward had been confirmed. The prison authorities claim that it is not against prison hostel regulations for a man to be a member of a union or to be a shop steward. Nevertheless, I have a letter written by the AUEW organiser on 8th October recounting a conversation which he had with Mr. Rock, the warden of the hostel, in which he said that Mr. Rock told him that it would not be in Gallogly's interests to go on as a shop steward because his action in raising a complaint with the manager could, technically, lead to a breach of the regulations covering his present circumstances as a prisoner on the hostel pre-release scheme.
In the letter, which was written by the organiser to Mr. Gallogly, the organiser stated that in his view the presence of Mr. Gallogly as shop steward would be extremely valuable. He also stated:
Your manner and experience could greatly assist the introduction of better relationships at the firm.
Several points arising from that letter are technical and some have implications for the future. First, I take the view that what Mr. Gallogly did was admirable. He organised a union, even though it might well have prejudiced his position as a prisoner awaiting release. He organised it in a way that was regarded by the union's area organiser as admirable, and when he was warned by the prison hostel warden that he might be withdrawn, he nevertheless went on with his activities because he regarded it as right to do so. I regard that as admirable and worthy of commendation. The way in which he was treated by the prison was despicable. My question is whether that was the fault of the firm or of the prison.
I accept that the situation was unusual. There cannot be many prisoners who act as shop stewards in a firm. One of the warders once told the district organiser that he was surprised that a man serving four years for smuggling drugs should be accepted as a shop steward by the AUEW. I think that there was that antipathy towards Mr. Gallogly in any event. But it is equally clear from what Mr. Rock said to the union organiser, and from my conversations with the assistant governor at Wakefield, that the prison authorities were not clear whether Mr. Gallogly could be a shop steward in those circumstances, and that they gave indications to the firm that they would not countenance that kind of activity. The firm therefore had a ready get-out when it did not like what Mr. Gallogly was doing.
In effect, the firm did not want to have a union on its premises. It wanted to break the union if it could, and it started by sacking the Asian shop steward. It then wanted to get rid of Mr. Gallogly. If Mr. Gallogly had not been a prisoner, there can be no doubt that the firm would not have risked industrial action by the AUEW simply because somebody else in the firm had threatend physical violence to Mr. Gallogly because he was honour-

ably undertaking shop steward duties. It would have been deterred by the thought that that might precipitate industrial action.
What the firm managed to do was to get the prison to remove Mr. Gallogly, and it is now claiming that it did not dismiss him. Clearly it did, but that is an issue that will arise at the industrial tribunal, and I do not intend to deal with it at great length now. I do not see how the industrial tribunal can decide anything other than that the firm dismissed him. It had been pressing the prison for some time to get rid of him, and eventually the prison withdrew him.
I argue that because of a misunderstanding, or perhaps because they did not like the idea of any of their prisoners being members of a union, the prison authorities co-operated with the firm in anti-union activity. If that were to continue, it would be a disgrace for a Labour Government to countenance that kind of policy. I want from my hon. Friend the Minister a firm assurance that all prisons engaged in the hostel release scheme will be told that any prisoner can join a union and take any effective part in it that he wishes; that he is not restricted because he is a prisoner; that if there is industrial action he will he treated in exactly the same way as if he were not a prisoner; and that it will not count against him in terms of disciplinary treatment and his removal from the hostel premises.
I also want the prison authorities to make plain that it was not their original wish that the man should be withdrawn from Aronsteads, and that the pressure for his withdrawal originally came from Aronsteads alone. That is a material piece of evidence for the industrial tribunal.
I hope that no such incident will ever occur again. That is why I have raised the matter. I am only sorry that I could not persuade Lord Harris to change his mind about putting the man back on the hostel scheme so that he could take steps against Aronsteads then. I am equally sorry that I could not raise the issue in the House whilst Mr. Gallogly was still in prison, so that it had more relevance to his condition then, but I hope that something will be gained for other prisoners in the future.

2.40 a.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brynmor John): My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) will readily know that it was not the Executive which denied him the opportunity of taking up this matter at an earlier stage in the proceedings. I shall try to answer my hon. Friend in the short time that remains to me in this debate.
It is important to know that the prerelease scheme is one by which selected prisoners sentenced to four years or more are enabled to spend their last six months before release in a hostel, thus helping them to take their place in society again. But the fact is that they are still prisoners and still under the control of the governor of the prison. A hostel warden is responsible to the governor for the good management of his hostel. It is part of the duty of the governor to return the man to prison if the governor thinks it right to do so. That is a provision contained in the form signed by each prisoner before he goes to the hostel. Mr. Gallogly signed such a form.
A further point is that the pre-release employment scheme is dependent for its success on the good will of the employer. Hostel wardens do a great deal of hard work on behalf of prisoners to fit them into jobs in a situation that is by no means easy.
I turn to the case of Mr. Gallogly. There are a number of disputes of fact and a number of questions on which the versions differ. It may assist my hon. Friend if I give brief particulars of our understanding of the case.
Mr. Gallogly started work on 28th June 1976 with Aronsteads Limited. As I understand the situation, it is a non-union firm, but I also understand—I go no further than that—that the firm does not object to its employees belonging to a union if they so wish. However, the rights and wrongs of the industrial scene are matters between the employers and the employees and trade unions concerned and not for the Home Office.
Mr. Gallogly believed that a recognised union branch could be established in the firm, and he started activity to that end. The hostel warden advised him that he was entitled to be a member of a trade union, but that if the firm dismissed him or asked the governor to withdraw him,

he might have to return to prison until another employment opportunity arose. That is spelt out in the form he signed before he went into the hostel scheme.
What happenedmdash;and I realise that the versions do not tally substantially—was that, following an incident in the firm, threats of physical violence were made against Mr. Gallogly by other employees, and Aronsteads asked for Mr. Gallogly to be withdrawn in his own interests. That was done on 26th October and he was returned to prison and not to the hostel because, in the governor's judgment, he would have been at more risk had he still been in the hostel.
I want to repudiate the allegation that Mr. Gallogly was sent back to prison to punish him for union activities. The reason that prompted the governor to return him to prison was a desire to secure the man's own protection. He was not being penalised for his union activities.
On 11th November the governor decided that the cooling-off period had been completed and that it was right that Mr. Gallogly should go back to the hostel. Again there is a difference of fact. My instructions on this version are that during the interview with the hostel warden Mr. Gallogly gave no reason for his failure to co-operate, but he did do so during an interview with the assistant governor at a later period during the day.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Why is it that Lord Harris told me in a letter that Mr. Gallogly had given different accounts on different occasions when it is now accepted that on the first occasion he gave no account of his reasons at all? I have a letter written on the day by Mr. Gallogly to his wife describing what he had told the warden of the hostel. That is consistent with what he later told the assistant governor.

Mr. John: My understanding is that when Mr. Gallogly was interviewed by the hostel warden he gave no such reason, but later did give one to the assistant governor. It could make no legal difference to the prisoner whether he was in prison or in the hostel; nor would his seeking other employment affect the issue. Nevertheless, Mr. Gallogly wished to be assured on that point, and since he could not reside in the hostel without


working or seeking work, he was retained in prison until his release on 20th December.
I emphasise that there is no question of a prisoner being punished for union activities or of depriving him of his union rights. Neither did the prison act as an agent on behalf of the firm by removing Mr. Gallogly without the firm being laid open to legal liability. Whether an employee wishes to belong to a trade union is a matter for him and not the Home Office or the Prison Department. Whether an employer wishes to recognise a union is a matter between him, the employees and the appropriate union. The pre-release rules allow union membership.
I cannot accept my hon. Friend's version of the position. Such a man is still a prisoner and the governor still has a responsibility for his safety and a responsibility to avoid his being put into positions of possible violence. I ask my hon. Friend to consider what would have happened—and the criticism to which the Home Secretary would have been subject—had an incident involving violence occurred without the governor having taken steps to deal with the matter.
The decision was taken in the interests of the safety of Mr. Gallogly and not for any reason connected with the firm. We were not concerned to act as the agent of that firm and the governor had to judge whether to remove Mr. Gallogly in his

own interests at that stage. I am satisfied that the decision was a reasonable one in all the circumstances.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Is it not correct that the firm had asked for Mr. Gallogly to be removed before the incident—whether or not for his own safety—and the governor acted on that request?

Mr. John: Certainly the firm advised the governor. I am speaking of the governor's motive and his motive was not to oblige the firm but to act in the interests of the man's safety. A request for withdrawal in Mr. Gallogly's own interests was made by the firm and once that withdrawal had been made the firm did not accept Mr. Gallogly back, although the immediate incident had passed. In coming to his conclusion the governor decided that this was in the interests of the man.
This scheme at present enables about 400 men and women every year to benefit from arrangements that usually work smoothly and with good will on both sides. That much is clear from the history of the release scheme.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at ten minutes to Three o'clock a.m.